Skip to main content

Full text of "Social relationships and institutions in seven new rural communities"

See other formats


Historic, archived document 

Do not assume content reflects current 
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
THE FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 
AND 

THE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 
COOPERATING 




Social Relationships and Institutions in Seven 
New Rural Communities 



BY CHARLES P. LOOM IS 



SOCIAL RESEARCH REPORT NO. XVIII 
WASHINGTON, D. C. JANUARY 1940 



In order that administrators might be supplied with needed information 
concerning the problems and conditions with which its program is concerned, the 
Resettlement Administration (absorbed September 1, 1937, by the Farm Security 
Administration) v/ith the cooperation of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics 
conducted a number of research investigations. This is one of a series of 
reports on these researches. Others v/ill be made available to administra- 
tors of programs for the welfare of rural people as rapidly as they are com- 
pleted, Reports to be issued, as planned at this time, include: 

I. An Analysis of Methods and Criteria Used in Selecting Families for 
Colonization Projeots, by John B. Holt, 
II. Tenure of New Agricultural Holdings in Several European Countries, 
by Erich Kraemer. 

Ill, Living Conditions and Population Migration in Four Appalachian 
Counties, by L. S. Dodson, 
IV. Social Status and Farm Tenure - Attitudes and Social Conditions of 
Corn Belt and Cotton Belt Farmers, by E. A, Schuler. 
V. Family Selection on a Federal Reclamation Project - Tule Lake Di- 
vision of the Klamath Irrigation Project, Oregon-California, by 
Marie Jasny. 

VI. A Basis for Social Planning in Coffee County, Alabama, by Karl 
Shafer. 

VII. Influence of Drought and Depression on a Rural Community - A Case 
Study in Haskell County, Kansas, by A. D. Edwards. 
VIII. Disadvantaged Classes in American Agriculture, by Carl C. Taylor, 
Helen 11. Wheeler, and E. L. Kirkpatrick. 
IX. Analysis of 70,000 Rural Rehabilitation Families, by E. L. Kirk- 
patrick. 

X. Standards of Living in Four Southern Appalachian Mountain Counties, 
by C. P. Looffiis and L. S. Dodson. 
XI. Standards of Living of the Residents of Seven Rural Resettlement 
Communities, by C. P. Loomis and Dwight M. Davidson, Jr. 
XII, The Standard of Living of Farm and Village Families in Six South 
Dakota Countis's, 1935, by W. F. Kumlien, C P. Loomis, et al. (Pub- 
lished by the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Brook- 
ings, South Dakota.) 
XIII. Standards of Living in the Great Lakes Cut-Over Area, by C. P. Loomis, 
Joseph J. Lister, and Dwight M. Davidson, Jr. 
XIV. Standards of Living in an Indian-Mexican Village and on a Reclamation 
Project, by C. P. Loomis and 0. E. Leonard. 
XV. Standards of Living in Six Virginia Counties', by Dwight M. David- 
son, Jr., C. P. Loomis, and B. L. Hummel. 
XVI. Social Relationships and Institutions in an Established Rurban Com- 
munity, South Holland, Illinois, by L. S. Dodson. 
XVII. Migration and Mobility of Rural Population in the United States, by 
Conrad Taeuber and C. E. Lively, 
XVIII. Social Relationships and Institutions in Seven New Rural Communities, 
by C. P. Loomis. 



CONTENTS 

Page 



Summary and Conclusions ] 

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 2 

Communities Studied ^ 

Chapter II. COMMUNITY INTEGRATION AND DISINTEGRATION i 

Examples Indicating Disintegrating Forces at Work ( 

Examples of Integration 1( 

Summary 1* 

Chapter III. INFORMAL SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 2( 

Hov/ the Associating Families Became Acquainted 2( 

Extent of Unorganized Participation 21 

Overlapping of Informal Relationships as an 

Indication of Integration 2- 

Bonds Relating Individuals to Informal Groupings 2! 

Summary 4< 

Chapter IV. PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL AGENCIES 5i 

Participation in Religious Organizations 5i 

Participation in Non-Religious Organizations 5! 

Availability of Social Agencies 6- 

Leadership ; 6( 

Summary 7; 

Appendix. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 7- 

DISCUSSION OF THE TERM "COMMUNITY" 7! 

COMPARISON OF OBSERVED VISITING ASSOCIATIONS WITH 

THOSE EXPECTED FROM CHANCE GROUPINGS, BOSQUE FARMS T 

COMPARISON OF OBSERVED VISITING ASSOCIATIONS WITH 

THOSE EXPECTED FROM CHANCE GROUPINGS, DYESS COLONY 8] 



Acknowledgment is especially due to Dwight M. Davidson, Jr., 
who drew the maps and supervised the tabulation and calculations 
as well as a major part of the field work. Others who contrib- 
uted to analyses were Edmund deS. Brunner, Jr. (who also assisted 
in the field work) and J. L. Charlton. Mary E. Johnson assisted 
in supervising the original field work for six of the groups. 
Olen Leonard supervised the field work at Bosque Farms and 
Ropesville, Linden S. Dodson at South Holland, Glenn Bakkum and 
Marie Jasny at Klamath Falls, Clark Loomis at Tortugas, and 
Dallas Mallison and Clark Loomis at Penderlea Homesteads. 



SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND INSTITUTIONS IN 



SEVEN NEW RURAL COMMUN ITIES 
By Charles P. Loomis 



Summary and Conclusions 

This report is an attempt to set a bench mark indicating quantitativelj 
and objectively the extent of social participation among the families on sever 
resettlement projects previous to and after resettlement. The "starting line' 
laid down here may constitute the basis from which future changes in socia; 
participation may be measured. In a previous report in this series a simila: 
starting point was established for the level of living. For the sake of com- 
parison in this study five additional communities were studied. 

Although the data concerning frequency of participation in the meeting; 
of social agencies were gathered too early in the life of the projects to prov( 
conclusively that definite trends toward increased or decreased social parti- 
cipation prevailed, implications from an analysis of these data do not poin- 
toward decreased formal social activity. In fact, attendance of families a' 
non-church meetings was greater after resettlement than before. This is ii 
part accounted for by the cooperative, educational, and other groups sponsorec 
by the resettling agencies. Although church attendance of the families on th( 
seven projects was somewhat less than that which the families reported for th( 
period previous to resettlement, it was relatively high considering the lack o; 
facilities during early project development. As the projects now have bette: 
equipment, organizations, and ministers, church attendance is no doubt greate: 
than at the time of the study. 

The informal social and economic life of families on the project: 
differed considerably from what they had been accustomed to in the comraunitie: 
in which they had lived previously. For example, a larger proportion of ths 
project families borrowed and exchanged work during the year of study than ii 
communities of previous residence. This increased cooperativeness on the proj- 
ects may be accounted for in part by the shorter distances between the homes o; 
associating families. The project officials encouraged cooperation and, as 
is common in pioneer situations, the settlers who did not have much equipment 
and plenty of funds with which to hire labor resorted to mutual aid. 

These small informal groupings are very important in the lives of the 
settlers and the administration of the projects should realize this. Or 
all projects, and especially at Dyess Colony administered by the Works Progress 
Administration, these groupings played an important part in determining whethei 
or not settlers were satisfied with their new way of life. 



- 2 - 



As 40 percent of the families had moved away from Dyess Colony between 
1936 and 1938, a special study of this question of leaving was made. It 
was found that some of these small groups insisted upon exaggerating the dis- 
advantages of living on the project, refused to listen to the counsel of groups 
of individuals who believed in the projects, and moved away to become share- 
croppers and laborers again. Other groups seemed to discount false and exagger- 
ated rumors about the disadvantages of the projects, the prices consumer-cooper- 
atives were charging, and objectionable characteristics of leasing and property 
arrangements. In other v/ords, the decisions of the settlers to move, like many 
decisions made in panics and gold rushes, were made in social settings in which 
these small groupings played an important role. Since such groups may determine 
to some extent the attitudes of the individual settler toward the project, 
they and their leaders should be considered in administration. 7/ays and means 
of spreading facts about the projects in such a way that the settlers do not 
feel they are being propagandized should be developed, Local forums and dis- 
cussion groups have been suggested. The number of rumors that disparage the 
projects could be reduced if the administering agency could make all policies 
as definite as possible from the beginning. Changing and conflicting proposals 
for deeding the property to settlers are sometimes a source of complaint and 
rumor. 

Analysis showed that these small cooperating and visiting groupings on 
the projects were less frequently tied together by such bonds as kinship than 
is true in comm^nnities of longer standing, but other factors m.ade for social 
cohesion. That the groups do not lack the intimacy and familiarity common to 
rural groups is indicated by the extent to which the family as a whole enters 
the relationship. In about 7 out of 10 of the project families who visited, 
borrowed, or exchanged work with other project families, the children played 
together. 

The study supported the theory that procedures could be developed which 
would assist in learning whether or not a family would be likely to remain on 
the project if chosen to become a settler. The analysis shows that families 
who had been relatively immobile and had more often participated in the formal 
social agencies of their old communities more frequently remained on the 
proj ects . 

There was a definite carry-over in leadership from the old communities 
to the new. Settlers who held offices in the old communities came to be recog- 
nized as leaders in the new situations on the projects more frequently than 
did settlers who had not been leaders in the communities where they lived 
previous to resettlement 



- 3 - 



Chapter I 
INTRODUCTION 

The origin of our ideals, our purposes, and our zests can be traced 
to intimate associations in our families, neighborhoods, and communities. 1/ 
Our beliefs concerning what is right, true, and beautiful are largely results 
of the interrelationships in which we participated as we were growing up. 
The great preserver of these beliefs is, of course, the family, but it is the 
local community that must ultimately support and sanction them. This not- 
withstanding, for some time past there has been a trend toward more emphasis 
upon the "great society" and less upon the local community. More recently, 
however, there has come the realization that no adequate understanding of either 
man's material or his non-material living is to be had without a consideration 
of his relation to his local community. 

To be effective, extension and other programs which have as their objec- 
tive the amelioration of the level of living must work with and through com- 
munities. 2/ The specialist who contacts only the individual families v/ill be 
fortunate if his work affects the practices of more than a small segment of the 
total population, but in areas where families belong to clearly defined com- 
munity organizations his task is easier. 3/ When a whole community requests his 



1/ For a brief discussion of the term "community" see appendix, p. 75. 
2/ This is the reason why rural sociology has been increasingly interested in 
rural communities. Almost from its inception it has occupied itself with 
studies of the rural community. See Galpin, C. J., The Social Anatomy of an 
Agricultural Community, Research Bulletin No. 34, Agricultural Experiment Sta- 
tion, Madison, Wisconsin, 1915. This is the first research bulletin to be pub- 
lished in the field of rural sociology in the United States. The first text in 
rural sociology, by John M. Gillette, was published 2 years earlier. Other 
early studies of communities were made by Kolb, Sanderson, Taylor, and Zimmer- 
man. For a bibliography of bulletins see The Field of Research in Rural 
Sociology, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 
Washington, D. C, October 1938. Among the most important contributions to 
community studies in book form are: Taylor, Carl C, Rural Sociology, Harper and 
Brothers, New York, 1926, chs . XVIII and XXI; Sorokin, P, A., Social and Cul- 
tural Dynamics, American Book Co., New York, 1937, Vol. Ill, chs. I-IX; Sander- 
son, D. L. , The Rural Community, Boston, 1932; and Zimmerman, Carle C, The 
Changing Community, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1938. 

3/ Foreigners have speculated concerning the reasons for the importance of 
rural sociology in America. Some believe that, because lack of community 
organizations has characterized social homogeneity and solidarity, in rural 
America there are many problems which are uncommon or less serious in countries 
which have rural communities with strong bonds. See Kaysenbrecht, Richard, 
Rural Sociology in the United States, The Sociological Review, Vol. XXIV, 
No. 1, January 1932, p. 44. Kaysenbrecht, after listing the whole gamut of 
problems dealt with at one of the leading American universities, writes: 
"To the European it may perhaps seem ludicrous to find ranged here* many self- 
evident every day questions, which on this continent appear entirely unprob- 
lematical . " 



- 4 - 



services, he may reach a hundred families as easily as another agent might reach 
one family in areas where there is little community organization and con- 
sciousness. In most rural areas of the United States v/here the isolated 
homestead prevails, community boundaries do not exist; therefore extension work- 
ers must frequently engage in organization work in order that the^^- may reach 
whole communities instead of individual families. 

Just as important as the community approach in the extension work of 
previous years is the community approach in the planning and the integration of 
agricultural programs. If the farm.ers are to determine their ovm agricultural 
policies for their respecti';e local areas, they must do so through their own 
local communities. Thus the local community assumes a double significance: it 
is the locus from which evolve plans for improved farming and living, and it is 
the "handle" which extension and other agencies must use in putting their know- 
ledge into use and in making such plans materialize. 

Unfortunately little is known about American rural communities and ef- 
fective methods of organization. This being true, the present studies of planned 
and established communities should have definite application. 

This report is written primarily from the viewpoint of the family as 
related to other families and institutions and agencies in the community. At 
a later date an attempt should be made to synthesize materials and describe the 
structure and functioning, as well as what has been called the "individuali- 
ties," of the various groups. 

C ommun i tie s Studied 

Ashwood Plantation, a resettlement project in Lee County, South Caro- 
lina, comprises about 12,000 acres from which approximately 128 farm units 
have been developed. The families to be located on the project (only 63 at 
the time of survey) were selected from the destitute and low-income farmers 
in the immediate area. It was proposed that eventually these families would 
operate farms ranging in size from 34 acres for the 1-horse unit to 84 for the 
3-horse unit. Standard- type frame houses, and in some instances houses of the 
low-cost type, were constructed to provide dv/ellings for these families. 

The Bosque Farms project in Valencia County, New Mexico, was begun 
by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, and later taken over by the 
Resettlement Administration (now the Farm Security Administration), to aid 42 
families that had been reduced to relief rolls as a result of droughts, de- 
pression, or the cultivation of lands unsuited to agriculture. Part of the 
families came from Taos County, New Mexico, where extensive farming and ranching 
prevailed, v/hereas another group came from the more intensive farming areas 
near Mills in Harding County, New Mexico. A third group was composed of 
families, mostly Spanish-American, that had been living upon the original estate 
before it was purchased by the resettling agency. Farm units, all of them 
irrigated, provided each of these families with about 40 acres and an adobe 
house with from 2 to 5 rooms 



- 5 - 



Table 1.- Location of communities studied and number of 
families interviewed in each 



uuuiuiuxix x<y 
r 
group 


OXd,Xc 


, IN uuiut: 1 U 1 . 

. xciiuj.xx^o in 
. (jUijiiuuil i 1^/ . 


Families interviewed 
Num- : Number of children - 
ber 2/:Under 15:15 or over 


1 rese XX j.emenx. 












proj ects 




i , iOb 


912 


2,308 


486 


Ashwood 


oouxn i/aroiina 


DO 




J. 




Bosque 


New Mexico 


42 


42 


53 


31 


Cumberland 


Tennessee 


200 


184 


463 


83 


Dyess 


Arkansas 


484 


415 


1 OGO 




Penderlea 


North Carolina 


110 


49 


118 


21 


Kopesviiie 


Texas 




32 


55 


6 


Skyline Farms 


Alabama 


225 


127 


367 


62 


i\lainaLn raXlS 


Uai 1 I ornia— uregon 


/ 
£/ 


57 


81 


24 


1 OrX-UgaS 


iNew iviexico 


1 nn 


33 


91 


22 






FOO 

N./ V V 


552 4/ 


491 


320 


Neighborhood of 












Bosque 


New Mexico 


3/ 


20 


28 


21 


Neighborhood of 












Cumberland 


Tennessee 


3/ 


47 


94 


42 



1/ At time of survey. 

2/ Does not include schedules discarded because of inadequate data concerning 
social participation. 
3/ Not known . 

4/ For calculations on organizational participation only 443 schedules were 
used. 



The Skyline Farms project was established in Jackson County, Alabama, 
where cotton was the principal farm crop. The families selected were almost 
exclusively white tenant farmers from this county most of whom had long been 
relief clients. Each of these was to be provided with a farm unit of about 
50 acres of tillable soil and a house having from 3 to 5 rooms. Another group 
of families, largely sharecroppers and laborers who had been on relief for some 
time, had come to the project to obtain work during the early stages of con- 
struction. Actually, these should not be classified as project inhabitants. 
They occupied crude shacks on the project and continued to live there even 
after employment had been reduced, hoping to be selected to remain as regular 
clients . 

The Cumberland Homesteads project in Cumberland County, Tennessee, 
was developed to provide means of relocating and rehabilitating families 
who were stranded as a result of partial or total cessation of mining and 



- 6 - 




- 7 - 



lumbering industries in that part of the State. About 250 farm units fur- 
nished each family with an average of 18 acres of land and a native-stone 
house with from 5 to 7 rooms. The land on this part of the Cumberland Plateau 
was of rugged contour and for the most part had never been cultivated before 
the development of the project. 

Dyess Colony, the largest project studied, is located in Mississippi 
County, Arkansas, in the rich delta area of the Mississippi River. It was 
established by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (later the Works 
Progress Administration) and, unlike the other 6 resettlement projects, has been 
administered by that agency. Approximately 600 families, selected principally 
from the low-income groups of owner and tenant farmers throughout the State, 
were relocated on farm units having from 20 to 40 acres of tillable land. 
Before the development of the project, however, a large part of this fertile 
land had been neither cleared nor drained. Modest frame dwellings with from 
3 to 5 rooms each were built to house the resettled families. 

For the project known as Penderlea Homesteads about 142 farm units 
averaging 20 to 34 acres were developed in Pender County, on the eastern 
coastal plains of North Carolina. Families were selected largely from distressed 
farm groups in all parts of the State. Here the housing consists mostly of 
standard-type farm dwellings of 4, 5, or 6 rooms each, and in some instances 
of low-cost houses having 4 or 5 rooms each, all constructed for the new farm 
units . 

On the Ropesville Farms project in Hockley County, Texas, families 
selected from low-income farm groups and from areas that were being taken out 
of cultivation in the western part of the State were relocated. Cotton farms 
predominated here. Originally 33 units averaging 120 acres each were de- 
veloped, but later it was proposed to add 48 farm units and increase the 
acreage to 160. Here, too. modest frame houses were built for the resettled 
families . 

At the time this study was made, the 7 resettlement projects were 
still in the process of development and the selection of families was in- 
complete. The building of new roads, the clearing and draining of land, and 
the construction of houses and farm buildings were all included in the large 
program which was planned but was at that time far from completion. Co- 
operative enterprises, which were proposed to aid the families in market- 
ing, purchasing, and production, were also in the early stages of their de- 
velopment . 

In the Klamath Falls Irrigation Project the settlers were commercial 
large-scale farmers living on a material level that differed little from 
middle-class urban families. A previous report 4/ described these families 
as being among the wealthiest farming groups in the country. They constituted 



4/ Loomis, C. P., and Leonard, 0. E., Standards of Living in an Indian-Mexican 
Village, Social Research Report No. XIV, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 
Washington, D. C, August 1938. 



- 8 - 



a cosmopolitan group, having been engaged previous to settlement in occupa- 
tions ranging from professional to farm tenants and having lived in areas 
as far south as Texas and as far east as New York. The majority were ex-service 
men of the World War who had been granted preferences as candidates for home- 
steads. 

As most of the families had lived on the project for 9 years, the social 
and economic life had become much more stable than on the recently established 
resettlement projects. The data gathered permitted comparisons between the 
extent of participation in organized social life on the project and during the 
year previous to settlement. 

Tortugas is typical of many Mexican villages of farm laborers in the 
Rio Grande Valley. A previous report 5/ indicated that, in terms of material 
goods and services consumed, the level of living of this group was one of the 
lowest ever reported in the United States. But in terms of non-material cul- 
tural heritage from Indian forebears the village is not so poverty stricken. 
This Catholic community of farm laborers, almost entirely dependent upon the 
labor market and public relief for its existence, stands in sharp contrast to 
the group of cosmopolitan, well-to-do farmers in Klamath Falls. 

Few Protestant communities in the United States are as closely knit to- 
gether by ethnic, kinship, occupational, and religious ties as is South Holland, 
Illinois. 6/ This rural community on the very outskirts of Chicago has been 
more successful in retaining its rural characteristics and many of its original 
customs, folkways, and mores than most American communities. 

Originally it was planned to include families living on the peripheries 
of the projects in- order to appraise the effect of the projects upon their 
environments. This was carried out only in the case of two projects, Bosque 
Farms and Cumberland Homesteads, but field work was completed for families 
living in the neighborhood of Penderlea Homesteads. 



5/ Ibid. 

6/ Dodson, L. S,, Social Relationships and Institutions in an Established 
Rurban Community, South Holland, Illinois, Social Research Report No. XVI, 
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, February 1939. 



- 9 - 



Chapter II 

COMMUNITY INTEGRATION AND DISINTEGRATION 

Although some social theorists maintain that progress is always as- 
sociated with strife and struggle, most of the well-known Utopias reveal man's 
longing for a peaceful world. In Paradise, we are told, there will be a Father 
under whose benevolent rule all will live as one great family in peace and 
accord. Many believe and teach that man's chief purpose is to bring this ideal 
kingdom on earth. Without going into a discussion of the role of ideals in the 
world suffice it to say that such beliefs, ideals, and teachings play an im- 
portant part in the integration of community life. 

Just as the lives of most individuals and families are influenced by 
group ideas or ideals, communities may have ideals and the will to integration. 
But the integration of the whole may be impeded by the wills of individuals or 
of outside groups as well as groups within an area of association having commu- 
nity potentialities. In more-or-less atomized societies (where heterogeneity 
of interests and behavior make for disintegration) the family may be the only 
group with any semblance of solidarity, but - ideally, at least - entire 
communities may be integrated in many respects. 

A cardinal principle of sociology holds that man's nature requires 
participation in the life of an integrated group if he is to have a normal 
psychological existence. In such a group internal strife is at a minimum, a 
pov/erful "we" feeling exists among its members, the morale is high, and all 
are loyal to common objectives entailing a spirit of self-sacrifice, if neces- 
sary, on the part of the individual for the whole. To project managers and 
other resettlement officials falls the responsibility of guiding the develop- 
ment of communities so that they will offer people the type of social life and 
contacts compatible with good living. 

Brief descriptions of some of the problems involved in community de- 
velopment are presented to indicate some of the problems with which administra- 
tion officials have been confronted. Data similar to those here presented 
are available for all the projects studied and will no doubt prove of value 
in determining trends in community developments. As examples of project 
development Dyess Colony, Arkansas, and Bosque Farms, New Mexico, have been 
selected . 

Examples Indicating DisinteRra ting Forc es at Work 

In all of the communities studied there are active processes of dis- 
integration as well as of integration. Few of the projects have been at all 
times free of families v/hich were liabilities rather than assets to the group 
as a whole. On one of the projects the greatest difficulty was migration 
away from the project; on another, contention between the management and some 
of the settlers relative to church activities; on still another, cleavage 
between groups of different status. In view of these evidences of community 



- 10 - 

disintegration, an effort was made to analyze the underlying causes and to 
suggest remedies. The following examples will illustrate the techniques em- 
ployed. 

Dyess Colony 

At Dyess Colony in Arkansas, where outward migration was an important 
problem, special procedures of analysis were devised. The investigators were 
confronted v;ith the question: Why had such a large proportion of the settlers 
abandoned the project to return to the status of sharecroppers in the Delta 
plantation area, leaving a place where they had the best houses they had 
ever lived in, the best schools their children had ever attended, the best 
and most reasonable hospitalization and medical service, probably the best 
library and cooperatives they would ever know, and doubtless the best oppor- 
tunity they would ever have for ownership? 

As indicated by Figure 2, emigration fluctuated greatly during the 
period covered, the greatest exodus occurring during the spring and summer. 
The reasons given by settlers for moving were principally based upon various 
types of dissatisfaction or objections (Table 2). 

One of the first steps made in the attempt to provide an explanation 
for the high turnover of settlers was that of comparing the 169 families (40 
percent) that left between May 1936, after the first field investigation was 
made, and April 1938, with the 252 (60 percent) that remained (Table 3), 

This analysis indicated, as would be expected, that the families who 
had been most mobile previous to settlement were those who tended most to 
leave. That the school was an important holding factor is evidenced by the 
fact that those families with the largest numbers of children of school age 
most frequently stayed. Also, those who had participated most in programs 
of formal community social activities in the communities of previous residence 
as well as on the project were those for whom the holding power of the project 
was greatest. A study of Table 3 will lead to the conclusion that if re- 
settlement agencies wish to have v/ell integrated communities, it is important 
that they select families of low mobility who participate in the social ac- 
tivities of their communities. 

On the whole, the movers were somewhat less well-to-do than the non- 
movers, but they had not attained less formal education, nor were they less 
popular as measured in terms of the average number of families that visited 
them. It was concluded that these differences in movers and non-movers were 
not great enough to explain why the former left and the latter remained. As 
a comparison merely of quantitative characteristics of individuals composing 
the group which moved and the group which stayed fell short of adequate explan- 
ation of community disintegration, social processes had to be brought into the 
picture . 



- 11 - 




u 

z 

o 
z 
o 
o 



< 

Z3 



Z3 
< 

u 



O 
ui 
z 



z 00 
O CD 



< 

a. 

Ui 

o 

in 

3 





cr 




z 


Q- 




— 


<: 




_i 


t 




— 


CD 




< 


cn 




> 


CD 




LU 


1— I 




CC 






Q. 


X 






CJ 




X 


CE 




(- 


< 




— 














CO 






_l 




X 


< 




t- 


— 




z 


o 




o 








LL 






LL 




> 


O 












1- 


CO 




O 


LU 




UJ 




< 


~3 


_J 


CO 


o 




z 


tr 




< 


CL 


< 






LL 


CC 


O 






y- 


<N 






lO 


- 


(T) 




> 


Q 




z 


_j 


z 


o 


o 


o 


_J 


X 




o 


UJ 


o 


o 


C/0 


UJ 






CO 


CO 


o 


< 


cn 


X 


QQ 


LU 






>- 


LU 




CD 


X 
















o 


11. 




CC 
LL 


O 






01 




15 


Q 




z 
— 


< 




> 


LU 
X 




O 








LU 






X 




CO 


(- 




LU 






— 


>- 




_l 


OQ 






Q 




< 


LU 




LL 


1- 






cr 




U- 


O 




o 


a. 






LU 




ce 


CC 




UJ 






03 


CO 






< 




ZD 






2" 








CU 




1 


z 




CvJ 


> 






< 




LU 


LU 




cr 







12 - 



Table 2.- Reasons given by 252 families for leaving Dyess Colony, 
October 1934 to April 1938 1/ 



Reasons for leaving the colony 


: Families giving 
: Number 


specified reasons 
Percentage 


Total 


252 


100.0 


Dissatisfaction or objections 


95 


37,7 


General 


32 


12.7 


To cooperative on project 


16 


6,3 


To mortgage and rent 


13 


5.2 


To high water and mud 


14 


5.5 


On part of whole family 


9 


3,6 


With project plans 


4 


1.6 


With country 


4 


1.6 


To furnish plan 


3 


1.2 


Outside attractions 


39 


15.5 


Other work 


25 


9.9 


Better chance off the project 


5 


2,0 


Went to live with kin folk 


9 


3.6 


Health 


58 


23.0 


Illness 


51 


20.2 


Death of one member 


7 


2,8 


Non-adaptation 


24 


9.5 


Failure to cooperate and 






requested to leave 


18 


7.1 


Not a farmer 


3 


1.2 


Could not adapt self 


3 


1.2 


Miscellaneous 


9 


3.6 


Family dissension 


4 


1.6 


Other 


5 


2.0 


No statement 


27 


10.7 



1/ This includes all families and is not limited to families that were inter- 
viewed in 1936, These reasons for leaving were taken from the records of the 
local administration. Each settler who moved was requested to give a reason 
and this was included in the records. 



- 13 - 



Table 3.- Comparison of 252 families remaining at Dyess since May 1936 
with 169 families who left Dyess between May 1936 and April 1938 



Item : Movers : Non-movers 



Percentage of families reporting moves, 1930-35 1/ 


79. 


,7 


75. 


,4 


Average number of moves, 1930-35 1/ 


2, 


,2 


1, 


,7 


Average distance moved, in miles 1/ 


102, 


,6 


85, 


,6 


Average number: 










Visiting relationships 


2 


.3 


2 


.4 


Organizations contacted on project 2/ 


2 


.7 


3 


.0 


Non-religious organizations contacted - 










At time of study 


1 


.09 


1 


.39 


Previous to settlement 




.72 


1 


.04 


Percentage of husbands not attending church 










preacnmg service — 










At time of study 




49 




41 






24 




14 


Average monthly attendance of husbands at church 










preaching service - 










At time of study 


1 


.05 


1 


.07 


Previous to settlement 


1 


.11 


1 


.24 


Percentage engaged in farming, 1930 3/ 


70 


.3 


76, 


.4 


Averages: 










Total value of family living 4/ 


$713 


$774 


Number of persons in resident family 


4, 


,8 


5, 


,5 


Age of male head 


34. 


,5 


38. 


,0 


Years of schooling of male head 


7, 


,4 


7. 


3 


Age of male head when married 


22. 


,4 


23. 


,0 


Number of children - 










6 years of age and under 


1. 


3 


1. 


4 


4 to 18 years of age 


1. 


8 


2. 


6 


10 to 15 years of age 




7 


1. 






1/ Does not include move to project. A move constitutes a change of residence 
for non-farm families and a change of farm or plantation for farm families. 
2/ Includes all organizations at which some member of the resident family 
reported attendance during the schedule year. 



3/ Only 4.4 percent of all settlers in each group were farm owners in 1930. 
4/ Loomis, C. P. and Davidscii, Dwight M. , Jr., Sociometry and the Study of 
New Rural Communities, Sociometry, Vol. II, No. 1, January 1939. Thirty- 
eight percent of the movers and 38 percent of the non-movers had been living 
on the project one year previous to the interview; for these families the 
average value of family living for the movers was $882 and for the non-movers 
$907. The remaining families in each group reported for the year previous to 
settlement an average value of $509 for movers and $689 for non-movers. Com- 
bining data for families reporting for a year's residence on the project with 
those reporting for a year off the project gives the figures used in this table. 



- 14 - 




- 15 - 



On no other project was there nearly such a lar^e turnover, nor did 
the families that moved form such an in-group, as at Dyess . Maps were con- 
structed to indicate graphically for all the projects the families that visited, 
exchanged work, and borrowed. 7/ From a study of the visiting relationships 
of the settlers at Dyess, it becomes apparent that the mov^ers originally 
constituted an in-group, as did the non-movers also (Fig. 3). 8/ iv^overs tended 
to associate more with movers, and non-movers more frequently with non-movors, 
than would have been the case if association had been random or subject to no 
factors other than chance, 9/ There are small groups of associating families 
in v/hich movers predominated and groups in which non-movers predominated (Fig. 
3, encircled portions A and B). 

If the reader will look at the encircled portion marked "B" on Figure 3, 
he will note that a small group of eleven families that visited amiong themselves 
remained on the project. He will also note that this group was somev/hat iso- 
lated from other surrounding families. The blocked-off portion of Figure 3 
which is designated as "A" is closer to the project center and in some re- 
spects offers more desirable farming opportunities than does B, yet of the 18 
families included in the area all but 7 moved away. As indicated on the map 
the families in this area might be considered as constituting an "in-group," 
the families of which visited together. Apparently the chains of relationships 
in this group carried disparaging rumors concerning the future of the project, 
v/hereas the relationships in group A inhibited such rumors. The reader will 
find other groupings similar to B, in which most of the members remained on the 
project, and similar to A, in which most of the members became disgruntled and 
left the project. 

Some of the settlers were prone to have greatly exaggerated ideas of 
the opportunities offered by the projects. As these far exceeded the possi- 
bility of realization, a commion claim of disillusioned settlers was that their 
golden dreams, resulting from prom.ises made to induce them to become, settlers 
in the first place, had not materialized. Then, on most of the projects there 
existed policies - very important to the settlers - which were either fre- 
quently altered or never rigidly defined. For instance, in some cases there were 
changes in policies regarding the type of tenure by which the settlers would 
hold the land and the rates they would pay. There were conflicting reports 
concerning payments for labor performed by the settlers or for propei'ly pur- 
chased from them. Changes were made in the personnel as well as in the policies 
of the local administration. Such conditions aided the confusion of rumors 



7/ Loomis and Davidson, Sociometrics and the Study of Mew Rural Communities, 
SoGiom.9try, Vol. II, No. 1, January 1939. 

8/ The map shov;ing relationships of movers and non-movers v/ould have indicated 
even more exclusiveness if the relationships shown had been kept up to date. 
The data for it were collected almost 2 years before the last mover designated 
had left. Obviously, there had been alterations in alignments in the meantime. 
9/ See appendix (p. 81) for a statistical analysis of the mover and the non- 
mover in-groups of Dyess comparing observed frequencies of inter-fumilial 
social participation with what could have been expected if only chance had 
determined such associations. 



- 16 - 



which rapidly traveled the familiar "grapevines" among the various members of 
the resettlement groups. In the case of Dyess Colony with its high mobility 
the families who later became movers tended to interpret such rumors to the 
disparagement of the project and the opportunities it did offer. The groups 
of families who stayed were more skeptical of such rumors and gave them in- 
terpretations more favorable to the success of the project. 

Thus, the decision v/hether to move or not to move was mads in a social 
setting rather than as a matter of cool, rational self-interest of individuals. 
The letters of mover families who wish to return shov/ that the decision to leave 
was due more to exaggerated dissatisfaction with the project than to exceptional 
outside inducements. 

Local discussion groups have been suggested as a means to attain more 
consensus of opinion concerning the merits of the various projects. A con- 
cordance of ideas and more rational decisions would normally be the outcome of 
such groups organized for and by the settlers v/ho would choose speakers and 
request factual, literature concerning their projects. Whenever possible, 
policies should be specific and reasons for changes should be explained in 
order to eliminate some of the causes ox misinformation. Furthermore, if the 
settlers themselves were called upon oftener to determine these policies, the 
causes for complaint would proportionately decrease. 

Examples of Integratio n 

Bosque Farms 

Bosque Farms presents an interesting illustration of the process of 
integration. For this project tv/o groups, comprising most of the settlers, were 
selected from dust-bowl counties in the northeastern part of New Mexico, Taos 
and Harding, when their farms were purchased in the land program. The Harding 
County group came from a dry-farming area near Mills, whereas the Taos group 
was accustomed to ranching and more extensive farming. The tv/o were in con- 
flict almost from the time they established residence on the project, one 
bitterly complaining that the administration was partial to the other in the 
drawing of lots for farm units. This drawing did actually result in the loca- 
tion of a larger proportion of one group on one side of the project than on the 
other and the idea of separation was rather significantly implied by the name, 
"Mason-Dixon Line," given by the settlers to a road that ran east and west 
through the new community. Table 4 indicates how different these groups were 
in both economic and social characteristics. 

During the early stages of the project there was a third group composed 
of Valencia County families, mostly Mexicans, that had been in residence on 
the Bosque estate before reclamation v/ork began. They joined neither of the 
other groups. Later, when the administration enlarged the holdings by reducing 
the 60 units to 40, only 6 of this third group were retained on the project. 
The resulting rearrangement of holdings as of January lSo5 is indicated on 
Figure 13 (p. 79) . Families of the two larger groups are now living in all 
parts of the project. 



- 17 - 



Table 4.- Comparisons of three groups 


at Bosque Fa 


rms with respect to 


specific characteristics as 


of January, 


1937 








Bosque Farms 






Settlers from - 




Item : 


Valencia 


: Taos : 


Harding 




County 


: County : 


County 


Number of families for which 








data were available 


6 


26 


13 


Number of moves, 1930-35 1/ 


0.5 


0.9 


0.7 


Total value of family living 


$825 


$758 


$1150 


Expenditures for - 








Clothing 


70 


94 


113 


Social participation 


2 


6 


9 


Number of organizations 








contacted - 








At time of study 


.5 


1.2 


1.4 


Previous to settlement 


.5 


1.1 


.9 


Monthly attendance - husbands 








Religious organizations: 








At time of study 


.5 


1.9 


2.2 


Previous to settlement 


.7 


1.9 


1.2 


Non-religious organizations: 








At time of study 





.2 


.2 


Previous to settlement 





.2 


.2 


Average number of visiting 








relationships 2/ 


1.3 


5.2 


4.1 


Average number of mutual 








visiting relationships 


.8 


1.4 


1.5 



1/ Exclusive of move to project. 

2/ Includes visits to, as well as by, the interviev/ed family. 



That early conflicts gradually yielded to integration ma,y be noted from 
the following diary entries made by settlers at different times after the 
project was begun on April 1, 1935. 

"September 26, 1935. The Sunday School moved from under 
the trees at headquarters to the school buildings. It v/as much 
nicer there, but there wasn't seats for all, so many had to 
stand. Quite a few quit coming. There was over 100 enrolled." 

"The Mills families who started to Sunday School and were 
treated so cold, all quit except Mrs. A. L. and children and 
two small children of B. G. When Mr. B. or Mr. N. preach after 
Sunday School, these Mills people go right after Sunday School. 
They have singing every Sunday night and none of the Mills attend." 



- 18 - 



Early in 1936. "Some member of the Taos 'bunch' started a 
petition trying to put the Mills people off but so far he hasn't 
had much luck. Some of the people said they like the Mills 
people better than him." 

"Everyone is talking now that the Mills people are going to 
Bluevvater. The gossip really travels here now so v/s can't be- 
lieve what we hear." 

(Later) "There was a petition going to fire Mr. B. and put 
G. in his place. Some of the Taos members and the Mills people 
got rather hostile over the whole affair because the Mills people 
are booked for staying and some of the Taos people are supposed 
to leave . " 

"Mr. 0. said out in public at one of the meetings that the 
Mills people could not stay if some of the Taos people had to 
leave and Mr. J. a Mills member nearly collared him. They 
thought for a while there was going to be a free-for-all fight 
between the Mills and Taos members. Some of the Taos men are 
sticking for Mills. " 

"February 1936, School and Sunday School are doing nicely. 
The people have begun to make friends. Some of those from. Mills, 
v/ho felt like they were so badly mistreated, are the best of 
friends with the leaders of the other group. Especially with 
the preacher Mr. B. It seems the Mills people were as much to 
blame for their indifference as the others were and have begun 
to realize the same. The clients are working together much 
better now and neighbor so much more." 

There were many situations that forced these antagonistic groups to 
recognize their mutual interests as well as enemies. They found a common 
source of trouble in the farmers, ranchers, and Indians who had previously 
used the sites of the settlers' new homes for grazing purposes and continued 
to let their stock run. Also, when one of the Mills forem_en v/as discharged, 
the project groups joined forces in striking against the local project adminis- 
tration and in signing a protesting petition. These and many other mutual ef- 
forts toward effecting a solution of common problems inevitably tended toward 
the dissolution of the old in-groups . As a result, despite wide economic and 
social differences, there are now indications of considerable integration. 

In January 1937 (alm.ost 2 years after the beginning of the project and 
11 months after the last diary entry above) each family was asked to give the 
names of the 5 families that visited at its home most freqently. In case 
family A visited family B and family B visited family A, the relation was 
designated "mutual;" in case family B did not visit family A, but family A 
visited family B, the relationship was "single." From the data gathered and 
classified in this way an association map of the community was made in order to 



- 19 - 



a3CGrta":-n the extent of the progress in integration - in other words, to what 
extent the old in-groups existed on the project at the end of the 2-year period 
(Figure 13, p. 79) . At the present time there is a great deal of association 
smong all three groups of settlers, which means that many of the scars of con- 
flict must have been healed and that considerable integration has taken place. 
More definite knowledge concerning the progress of integration is to be had 
from a statistical analysis based upon Figure 13 and the discussion in the 
appendix (p. 77). Thus, at Bosque Farms, as in the case of most of the other 
projects, common interests and experiences are gradually integrating the var- 
ious groups into a community whole. 

Summ ary 

Trained field men who lived in the communities from one to three months 
participating in the life of the communities were able to gather m.uch infor- 
mation concerning community integration and disintegration. From the more 
formal aspects of the study such as those presented, and from this participant's 
observation, the following conclusions were drawn: 

(1) Cn all the new projects there v/ere active forces which, on the one 
hand, tended toward community integration and, on the other haud, tended toward 
disintegration. 

(2) Indications are that in any community those families v/ho are least 
mobile and participate m.ost in the programs of organized comm.unity agencies 
make the most stable type of settlers. 

(3) Uncertainty as to management policies vitally important to settlers 
and their families may lead to the circulation of m.isinf orm.a.ticn and to un- 
founded dissatisfaction. 

(4) If projects had discussion groups or other channels through which 
reliable informiation might be obtained and made a part of the thought processes 
of the settlers, community 'integration would probably be furthered. 

(5) The more the local groups shoulder the responsibilities of adminis- 
tration, the less reason they have to find fault with the resettling agency. 

(6) In resettling families, it is important that the officials endeavor 
to avert situations that might result in powerful in-groups capable of destroy- 
ing community integration. 



- 20 - 



Chapter III 

INFORMAL SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 

As sociology is a study of human interrelationships, it is largely con- 
cerned with the origin and the characteristics of formal and informal groupings. 
The modern resettlement community offers an ideal opportunity for observation 
and analysis of both the origins and the functionings of such groupings. In 
this chapter those informal relationships betv/een individuals and families which 
occur for the most part outside the established social agencies of the com- 
munity will receive special attention. 

How the Associating Families 10/ Became Acquainted 

In most rural sections in America it is customary for an established 
resident of a neighborhood to visit new arrivals of his own or of a similar 
social status. It is pertinent, therefore, that 40 percent of the interviewed 
families on 6 resettlement projects 11/ became acquainted with those families 
with whom they were visiting at the time of study through a special visit on 
the part of one of the families involved. In contrast, only 6 percent of the 
more urbanized settlers of Klamath Falls met in this way. Of the resettlement 
families who associated, about one-fourth became acquainted under circumstances 
more or less fortuitous, such as meeting on the road, at work, on trips con- 
ducted by officials to inspect the project, at various project agencies other 
than formal social organizations, or through comim.on acquaintances and relatives 
(Table 5). Again Klam.ath Falls stands in contrast to the resettlement projects 
in that over one-half of its families reported meeting under such circumstances -= 
largely, however, because they happened to be neighbors. Seven percent of 
those on the 6 resettlement projects reported having known previous to their 
arrival on the projects the families with whom they were visiting at the time 
of study; on the reclamation project over 11 percent had been previously ac- 
quainted. The remaining families on the resettlement and reclamation projects 
met largely through formal institutions and clubs and by various incidents in- 
volving aid rendered by one family to another. Vvith respect to the latter, it 
is interesting that at Klamath Falls only 0.6 percent of the families (1 case) 
became acquainted through an incident involving mutual benefit, while on the 
projects over 6 percent of the families met through such means. This, taken 
with other differences, tends to accentuate the urban character of Klamath 
Falls. 



10/ A family that associates with one interviewed family m.ay associate v/ith 
several other interviev/ed families. This means, for example, that a given family 
may be counted more than once as visiting, or that one family may be involved 
in several visiting associations. This holds as well for borrowing and ex- 
change of v/ork. This explains why the "number of associating families" will 
exceed the "number of interviewed families" throughout the text and tables of 
this chapter. 

11 / No data collected for Cumberland Homesteads. 



- 21 - 



ON 



O O O O rH 



o o cu rH ^<^_^ rHogiOooot-- m -4-^ oo ihoo oihoo j^^'^^ ^ 



ON 



r^lAOOCVJ OOOSOvOLTvPJrHOOJOOOCNJfO vO^OOOO iHLTNCJ OOJrHrH ONf-rACT\ C— 



it 



ON 



Oi-HcyvOOrH _d-oHOf~cvioooooo^ioo vOiArHoo woo wooo oooo t-- 



CVJ rfNj-co J-r<N Q O u>\0 iaO 



r~_a-sO rr\0 o o o_J 



ON L'NH 
ISl r-t i-i 



rH (M \0 CO rH 



^^1 



hTN O lA 



ITl 



81 



^f^ rH o O O 



irNOjr~iricooNONONOrHt~-\ooco_d' 



^(^^<^^r^ (M C\J 



CO 
PI 



ONOrHONrHrHO^OOOOOOrH QStT\ir\0 t-i O i-l OOrHO ONsO O IIN 



ON 



o oj in in^ w 

-> f~ rH - 



CVJ 



t--Lr\K\ rC\rC\rH rH OJ•^<^CVI rH 



& a) x! C +> C 

t7 -H © .H O 

3 +1 +> t3 0< 

Oh -H O 3 

^ U (0 -p o 

>1-H -H -H -H T3 W 

4:» t> t> CO O 0) 

t, to .H +> C 

Oj O >>+= > -H .rt 

'H o to to n 

x: 3 ® -H 3 

ID ffi E-< '-3 ^ > CQ 



O bP-ri 

^. of oi 

•rl 3 

O 0< +) CJ* 



■p a 



■ to 

.2 



|> -H O J3 

•H S-1 „ O , 

+> ^ C -P ^ 

Cj O to -H l» O 

r-f U a 

<» +> o © > tp 

fc, O ^ ^ -H C 

, © X rH .H ' 

j3 -o to O P ' 

to O -H 



3 P ^ 3 ki © 



t S =5 
© 



o P 



■p -p +> 
© © © 

s a a 



O Ih -H 3 
•3 t^^ a 



O B. C TJ 

^ +> to O 
■p Ol QJ © 

+J +> +> o< . . 
©©©al©v©*H 

aaawcoaaa 



to -p 

3 as ' 
as 

o -p -P 




•H rH oj rH to 
to © O tM © rt 

o m m a o 



a 3 



g © cj 

© 5 ^H rH 



- 22 - 



Predominance of New Associations on Projects 

Only about 3 percent of the families that borrowed from, exchanged v/ork 
with, and visited the interviewed families on the projects were associating 
with the interviewed family in one or more of these ways during the last year 
of residence in the old communities (Table 6) . It is thus apparent that most of 
the associations on the projects are new ones resembling those of pioneers in 
the early days of the settlement of the country. 

Table 6.- Percentage of families reported as having specified associations with 
the interviewed family at the time of study v/ho also had such associations 
with the interviewed family previous to settlement,' 1 recla,mation and 
7 resettlement projects and 4 control groups 1/ 



: As socig t ion s 

Residence : Visit : Exchange work : Ecrrow 



7 resettlement projects 


4 


3 


2 


Ashwood 


2 


6 


4 


Bosque 


• 52 


23 3/ 


3/ 


Cumberland 


2 





2 


Dyess 


2 


3 


1 


Penderlea 


1 


2 


1 


Rcpesville 


2 


2 


2 


Skyline Farms 


2/ 








Klamath Falls 





2 






1/ See Table 1 for number of interviewed families and Table 30, appendix, for 
total numiber of associating families. The basis for the percentages in this 
table is the number of associating families for which data concerning the sub- 
ject involved were available. 
2/ Less than 0.5 percent. 
3/ Less than 15 cases involved. 

E xte n t of Unorganized Participation 

To those persons interested in the more far-reaching aspects of the level 
of living, the query will immediately come to mind as to whether the neighbors 
of the interviewed families on the projects were as sociable and cooperative 
as were those in the old communities or even in the control groups. The im- 
portance of such a problem cannot be overestimated when one realizes that the 
development of the human personality is largely dependent upon reciprocity of 
relationships and social stimulation. People not privileged to have such 
associations in their local neighborhoods must be considered as disadvantaged. 



- 23 - 



In order to analyze non-organizational sociability and cooperative- 
ness, the visiting, exchange of work, and borrowing activities were studied. 
Although these are among the better indexes of informal social and economic 
participation in rural America, the type of farm enterprise as well as the 
structure of the community determines the extent of participation in them. 
For example, an analysis of exchanging work and borrowing activities would 
hardly portray sociability in Klamath Falls or South Holland. In these com- 
munities well-to-do farmers owned most of their own farm equipment and so bor- 
rowed only infrequently. Both groups hired outside help and seldom exchanged 
work themselves. At Tortugas the farm laborers had so little land that there 
was little borrowing or exchange of work. For the resettlement projects, how- 
ever, the indexes proved more meaningful. 

With the exception of Bosque Farms, the data indicated that the families 
recently settled on projects were exchanging work and borrowing more than had 
been the case in the communities of previous residence (Table 7) . Because ' 

Table 7.- Percentage of interviewed families who reported that at least one 
other family visited, borrowed farm implements, or exchanged work with 
them, at time of study and previous to settlement, 1 reclamation 
and 7 resettlement projects and 4 control groups 



Residence 


Number of : 
interviewed : 


Percentage 
repo r t ing 


of interviewed families 
specified associations 


families : 


Visit 


Flxnhanpp work* 


Rn rrow 


Pppvimi^ to ^f^t + lpmpnt ' 










7 resettlement projects 


912 


98 


43 


51 


Ashwood 


63 


100 


29 


46 


Bosque 


42 


91 


48 


39 


Cumberland 


184 


94 


28 


30 


Dyess 


415 


100 


56 


68 


Penderlea 


49 


100 


53 


78 


Ropesville 


32 


94 


56 


50 


Skyline Farms 


127 


98 


23 


23 


Klamath Falls 


57 


51 


18 


11 


At time of study: 










7 resettlement projects 


912 


98 


59 


65 


Ashwood 


63 


100 


84 


65 


Bosque 


42 


89 


18 


14 


Cumberland 


184 


97 


30 


40 


Dyess 


415 


99 


80 


89 


Penderlea 


49 


100 


66 


90 


Ropesville 


32 


100 


81 


69 


Skyline Farms 


127 


98 


25 


32 


Klamath Falls 


57 


88 


39 


39 


Tortugas 


33 


89 


11 


14 


South Holland 


552 


92 


8 


6 


Neighborhood of - 










Bosque 


20 


89 


16 


26 


Cumberland 


47 


100 


38 


42 



- 24 - 



farmers, as a rule, exchange work and borrow to a considerable extent, the 
results of these data were significant in view of the fact that a large pro- 
portion of families on all of the projects except Cumberland Homesteads and 
Penderlea had been engaged in farming during the year previous to settlement. 
The large percentage of families on the Bosque project that reported no visiting, 
exchanging work, or borrowing is undoubtedly accounted for in part by habits 
established in the isolated existence led by these people previous to settle- 
ment. Because of great distances between ranches and homesteads in the areas 
from which many of these families came, cooperation and visitation were rela- 
tively rare. Then, too, there were certain conflicts between groups on the 
Bosque project which tended to discourage various associations. 

ve r 1 app ing . p f n f o rma l__Re 1 a t i p n sh ips 
As._ an... Ind icatio n of Inte gration 

Visiting is predominantly a social relationship and may have little 
economic significance. Borrowing and exchanging work, however, are predominantly 
economic activities, though they usually do have certain sociological impli- 
cations. If tbe families who make up the primary face-to-face group contacts 
of a given family all visit, exchange v/ork, and borrow farm implements, one 
with another, the informal group life may be considered intensive. If, however, 
the family chooses associates or stands in mutual relationship to families who 
do not in turn associate among themselves, then the informal group life may 
be considered largely atomized. Theoretically, in a completely atomized 
society the individual would choose his relationships in such a way as to attain 
his own ends regardless of anything which in other societies might be called 
bonds or ties. In case there existed such atomized societies, a given family 
would probably not visit, borrow, and exchange work with another given family 
merely because the families were related by kinship, long-standing friendship, 
or by various types of compatibility. On the other hand, it may probably be 
assumed that there is a high degree of integration if, in a group of families 
who require assistance in several types of activities, all such assistance is 
obtained from one or within the same group of families. 

According to the data compiled, settler families tend to associate 
more on the project than they did previous to settlement. This was true 
of all the individual projects with the exception of Bosque Farms and Cumberland 
Homesteads. Of all families visiting together on the projects as a whole, only 
59 percent did not also exchange work or borrow, or both; in the years previous 
to settlement, however, 70 percent of the farail.i.es failed to exchange or borrow 
from those families with whom they visited (Figure 4) . The conclusion may thus 
be drawn that informal social relationships tended to have cooperative economic 
aspects more frequently on the projects than was the case previous to re- 
settlement. Since families in the control communities exchanged work or bor- 
rowed less frequently, there was not so much overlapping in their relationships 
with visiting families as in the case of the resettlement families. 

The number of families who participated in either of the two economic 
activities (borrowing and exchanging work) but did not visit was small. Both 
at the time of study and previous to resettlement about three-fourths of the 
project families who engaged in either of the economic activities also visited 
(Fig. 5 and Fig. 6) . Thus economic participation of this nature is usually 



- 25 - 



20 



PERCENT 
40 60 



80 



100 



ASHWOOD 
PLANTATION 



BOSQUE FARMS--- 



CUMBERLAND 
HOMESTEADS 



DYESS COLONY 



PENDERLEA 
HOMESTEADS 



ROPESVILLE 
FARMS 



m mmmm 



^ mmm 



^ m 



:;>:83-; 



■■::--:-j^':y:y:-:- 




SKYLINE FARMS 



7 RESETTLEMENT 
PROJECTS 



KLAMATH FALLS 



SOUTH HOLLAND. 
ILLINOIS 



^ mmm 



•8 4:: 



r 



•88>;>;::x'\-x>::;:v:v:;:>::: 



TORTUGAS. 
NEW MEXICO 



B 



NEIGHBORHOOD 
OF BOSQUE FARMS 
















94:; 



- B 



NEIGHBORHOOD 
OF CUMBERLAND --- B 
HOMESTEADS 







:;;;::::;;;;>;;:;93:;;;:;:; 


















' \\\'';':vV'.v;';v.'v:': 






1 1 1 1 



1 Visit, borrow. 
' and exctiange 

A- Previous to settlement 



Borrow and ^ttt, Exchange work 
visit only and visit only 

^-At time of study 



Visit 
only 



U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG 35138 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 4.- Overlapping of relationships as indicated by percentage of families 

VISITING interviewed FAMILIES WHO HAD SPECIFIED ADDITIONAL RELATION- 
SHIPS, AT TIME OF STUDY AND PREVIOUS TO SETTLEMENT, 1 RECLAMATION 
AND 7 RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS AND 4 CONTROL GROUPS. 



- 26 - 



PERCENT 
40 60 



100 



ASHWOOD 
PLANTATION 



BOSQUE FARMS 



CUMBERLAND 
HOMESTEADS 



DYESS COLONY 



PENDERLEA 
HOMESTEADS 



ROPESVILLE 
FARMS 



SKYLINE FARMS 



7 RESETTLEMENT 
PROJECTS 



KLAMATH FALLS - 



SOUTH HOLLAND 
ILLINOIS 



TORTUGAS, 
NEW MEXICO 



NEIGHBORHOOD 
OF BOSQUE FARMS 

NEIGHBORHOOD 
OF CUMBERLAND - 
HOMESTEADS 




■B BT 




•.37- 



Exchange work, j^grg Exchange work 
borrow, and visit and visit only 

fi^=Previous to settlement 



Exchange work 
"^^^ and borrow only 
B = At time of study 

*LESS THAN IB INTERVIEWED FAMIUES INVOLVED 



Exchange 
work only 



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



NEG. 35139 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 



Figure 5.- Overlapp i ng of relationships as indicated by percentage of families 
exchanging work with interviewed families who had specified additional 
relationships, at time of study and previous to settlement, 1 
reclamation and 7 resettlement projects and 4 control groups. 



- 27 - 



ASHWOOD 
PLANTATION 



BOSOUE FARMS 



CUMBERLAND 
HOMESTEADS 



DYESS COLONY - 



PENDERLEA 
HOMESTEADS 



ROPESVILLE 
FARMS 



SKYLINE FARMS 



7 RESETTLEMENT 
PROJECTS 



KLAMATH FALLS 



SOUTH HOLLAND 
ILLINOIS 



TORTUGAS. 
NEW MEXICO 




NEIGHBORHOOD 
OF BOSQUE FARMS 

NEIGHBORHOOD 
OF CUMBERLAND - 
HOMESTEADS 




Borrow, exchange rero Borrow and 
work, and visit visit only 

f< = Previous to settlement 



Exchange worh: 
and borrow only 
B=At time of study 

*LESS THAN IS INTERVIEWED FAMILIES INVOLVED 



Borrow 
only 



U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 35137 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 6.- Overlapping of relationships as indicated by percentage of families 
borrowing from interviewed families who had specified additional relation- 
ships, at time of study and previous to settlement, 1 reclamation 
and 7 resettlement projects and u control groups. 



- 28 - 



accompanied by social participation. This holds for all the groups studied 
in 'vvhich there was any considerable amount of borrowing and exchanging v/ork. 

Bonds Relating I ndividuals to I nfor mal Groupings 

When families find themselves among strangers, just what factors de- 
termine the families with v^hom they strike up acquaintanceships? Are the 
characteristics of those families who associate with each other in new com- 
miunities or on the frontier similar to the characteristics of the associates 
in the communities from which the families came? To answer such questions, 
the families on the 7 resettlement projects were interviewed as to their in- 
formal associates both on the projects and in the communities of previous resi- 
dence. The associates of the families in the 6 other groups were also deter- 
mined. Each family head interviewed was requested to rank families on the 
basis of frequency of visitation to his home. 12/ In each of the communities, 
interviewed families also ranked those families with whom they exchanged v/ork 
on the basis of the number of days involved, and those from whom they borrowed 
on the basis of the frequency with v/hich farm implements were borrovved. Wherever 
there were other indications of informal groupings, they were investigated. 15/ 
After the names of the associated families were thus ranked, their charac- 
teristics were listed in order that the pairs of associating families in the 
various situations might be compared in an effort to determine some of the 
bonds that were working toward group integration. 

As another step in the analysis, the non-associating families in the 
immediate vicinity were ranked on the basis of the proximity of their residence 
to that of the interviewed fam.ily. The characteristics of non-associating 
families were also obtained for comparison with those of the interviewed 
family. Carrying the procedure still farther, the names of all families inter- 
viewed in each community were put in containers and shaken up. From these, 
random pairs of associations were selected in order that their characteristics 
might be compared with those of the families actually associating. 

Correlation coefficients betv/een identical characteristics of associating 
pairs of families were calculated to determine in what ways associating families 
tended to resemble one another. The assumption was made that if, in consider- 
ing a given group or project, the correlation coefficient for a given factor 
(such as total value of family living) was high between the family interviewed 
and the family visiting this interviewed family, the tendency for families 
living on the same plane or level of living to visit prevailed within this 
group to a greater extent than did the tendency for families living on different 
planes or levels of living to visit with one another. 



12/ Only family visitation was studied. The visits of both parents together 
or either parent alone, whether or not accompanied by children, were defined 
as family visits. The visits of children unaccompanied by their parents were 
not included. 

13/ For example, carrying the mail for one another was used on one project. 



- 29 - 



As a check on this assumption, correlation coefficients indicating the relation- 
ship between the level of living for the interviewed family and the level of 
living for the nearest non-associating family were calculated. The same co- 
efficients were calculated for the families paired by random selection. 14/ 
The hypothesis that families paired by such random methods would not be similar 
in many of their characteristics was largely supported. Of 32 coefficients of 
variables for families paired at random, only 6 were greater than .12 (Table 8). 
15/ It is of interest that the coefficients for the latter were in practically 
all cases comparable to those between pairs of nearest non-associating neigh- 
bors. Inasmuch as the coefficients for the pairs of non-asscciating families 
and for the pairs of families selected at random were low, it may be assumed 
that the families who comprise each pair thus artificially created are dis- 
similar with respect to the characteristics tested in the analysis. 

The correlation analysis did not indicate that families must have a 
large degree of similarity in order to associate. Distance between homes 
was very important at the time of the study and may have discounted the in- 
fluence of some other factors which otherwise would have had definite in- 
fluence . 

Some of the tentative conclusions of the present study, as suggested by 
Table 8 and other calculations, are the following: (1) With respect to cer- 
tain social and economic characteristics which were used as indexes in measur- 
ing the extent of formal and informal social participation of families, as- 
sociating pairs of families tended to be most similar in number of families 
contacted in visiting, number of organizations contacted, monthly attend- 
ance at church and non-church organizations, expenditures for social partici- 
pation and recreation, and, with the exception of Cumberland Homesteads, 



14/ The data were first plotted on correlation charts, and the problem was 
set up as follows: If A associated with a and each had total values of family 
living of Xi and yi respectively, B associated with b and each had total values 
of family living of Xz and y2 respectively, C associated with c and each had 
total values of family living of Xa and y3, then the two variables in the 
problem would be X and y, or the total values of living of the interviewed 
family and of the family visiting with the interviewed family. X and y are 
components of one social relationship. If for many items the coefficients 
have been high (1.0 is the perfect correlation), there would be predilection 
in favor of the assumption that the associating families were similar in respect 
to the variable under consideration. The technique was devised to test group 
homogeneity . 

15/ Of these six coefficients, four were for the combined projects of Ashwood 
Plantation, Bosque Farms, Penderlea Homesteads, and Ropesville, and two were 
for these same projects with the addition of Skyline Farms. The combination 
of such diverse universes (which was made in these instances in order to in- 
crease the size of the population) may be questionable. The Dyess sample was 
of sufficient size that the coefficients could be shown separately. When the 
projects were analyzad separately, all coefficients for families paired by random 
selection were less than ,12. 



- 30 - 



' 3 iH 

I o "-I 

Ih o 



I 



I 



< J3 CI 
I CO o 

w 



K^^<^CT\K^K^■HH^<^ 



vo cvj w t-- r-o CJ c\j g}Q>ft^ c~- c~- ^<^ 

M^ rC\ KN t<\ tC\ rCi tr» hTV iHr-trHi-l HiHiHpH 



^^^^ 



ITMIJ >-l O O K\ 



ni iH <n m r- t-- 
tF\ roi r<\ dy KM<M<\ 5| iH rH iH rH 



CO OJ o\ 
I rH rH 5l W 



to 0\ 

OJ rH 
CVI CM 



i o o o o o c 



'^S QN^'S'W rH ^ 

oooooooo 
I I 

Q t-r 00 CO LTv t~ U\ t~- r^lTiOVrH On rOv rH rH 

OOrOOOOOrH OOCgfS Hr^^<^rH 

I ■ 

fco ir, CO o o 
ITl^O O Q a C\l 
o o o o o o o 

I I 

O OJ CO LTi r1 f~_:t O 

hr\o o o o o o o 
I I I I I I 

O ffvKNvO CM &\rci OJ Ql J- a CO CO H 

rHOKNOOOOOl OOOjW OJ O OJ O 



19 8 S 8 8 f*^ 
O C3 CO ^ C3 q rH 



IfN-S rH CO rH 

I I 

•H CJ tr\ rH OJ rA rH eg rH KS 6 O O C\J 

• ••••••• • • • i • • • • • • 

I 

rH CO rO> ^- ON rH 

CO J- ^<^ OS to On rH o 
rHrHrHlAOrHrHrH 

KMTv UMTS 0M~- C\l rf\ \0 ^O OJ 

^rHOOOOrHO l-t i-l 

• ••«•••* ••• 

O O to CO rOv K\ NO rH r<\fC\ t— KMTNtO OnnO 

OJ ro, H H CVJ rH OJ KXOSSnS J-OrHICi ri CM 

• •••• ••• •••• •••• 

SrH tjN rH CO Q O ft) 
O ITiJ-OnS Q ® 
•HlAOjSlSoOJ 

• • • • • • • • 

I I 

On ITv C\J On rH ^ CO CO tO 
L'^^-u^t<^OJ'-^o^<^ 



nO rH rH OJ t~-NO IfNtTN ON ON On ON pNOONtO O CO W rH to O CVl rH rH On rH m CNJ rH IfNOjNOCTN (1> CO 

OSnOnO UMTlOSiriiri OiCIOIOJ OltC^SlOl OjrH 05K^rH$^U^O1^0rH KNOSrH lOv^SS* ^ ITl 

r^r^r^r-ii-ii-ir^r^ r^rHrHrH rHrHrHrH r-lrH CJOJCJOOJOrlhTN rHiHrfMA ITN OJ O KN OOJ 



43 tS 



O (H © O OS O 05 

\. \,0 <H (D •=? a i3\.o •<H 9 

itnH o • u -h 2 [--H NO o 43 d 



si 



^1 » !3 



a 

] ^ ^ O <W4 O to 

® O O ^ 

I D« i « Vi o o 

i " Q >» O 

1 t. t< C -P u u 

: s o aj -H © o o 

j3 ^ 4^ « e x> .a 

> S 3 CO fl -H a d 



Q d O (3 ol 



I p4 © ^ 



3 • B-t 

- to &■ 
fl to 

3 -S "3 

4J "O -rt 



rH a 
>.rH d 

■-r 43 e 

•H 43 jS • 



rH O 0) O O 3 



I 73 a ® 

B >. O 
O rH a 



to 3 - f' 

O G> 



CD d 9 

goo 

a 



- 

9 +> g _ 



O L. ^rH 



-o a 

O -rt 8 

a> o +J 



BSC 
3 O 
rH iH © 
d t M 



© o 

t Q* a © 

I o 

I u u d 

E <D O CS 

^ -Ci -P 

* S a n 



fB.42 

u d 

I o rH e 

' 13 -H o 

I d o o 

I « o t< 

I P3 m 



rH e rH 
d rH O d 



i> £ 3 

» rH 
D O o 



O -p © Ol 



I 43 n £l,rH tn 



B ^ © O Q ® « 
8 >>43 fe d O rH a 
<wrH C3 (DdciJ43m 
^ O 'H 43 43 



n d 

C O 



^ i ° E § d 

4* "Vh U © -H O 

_ O -P 

T3 TJ © 4J ^ 

Sta 4£ -H I aJ «-t a! 

Oj a O -p O -P 

© CO d d 

rHrH©a5dpHtOrH 

3 a -p j= © -o 13 

Vt^©43a}0©0 

•o-a©fedS-p6 

p <s> h o £ _^ S 



tit 



J3 ^ ^ -aJ ^ 



43 d +> ^ -3 T^rH 

d -a a 9 o o 

■H a<x q t< d 

O 3 O .rl Deri 

© © o 

si -ri U to C O V 

43 rH bO © «9 43 a 
■rj n 43 ^ 4> 

<ri a d d O © O 

O d © O O > © 

4h t> O "rj 

43 ^ <;h o a o 

o rH hO O >i 
,H rH K O 0. 

n d d u c 43 c 
d , o 

o <ri q ,a Li a u 

O O -ri ^ O 3 O 

_ 3 <^ o ^ 
d d 

rH S 'S * "8 

! S ^ EH » 1^ a 



an 



- 31 - 



expenditures for clothing. 16 / (2) The correlation coefficients for the total 
value of living indicated that there was some tendency for families of similar 
economic status and similar levels of living to associate. 17/ (3) There were 
indications that certain factors not included in the correlation analysis were 
more important in determining associations than those included. For example, 
subtle psychological factors making for compatibility often constitute more 
lasting bonds between individuals than the amount of money or education a person 
may have. Thus many times association bonds are strongest when distinct dif- 
ferences in personality complement one another. It is planned that other 
factors may be taken into consideration in subsequent studies. (4) The corre- 
lation coefficients between factors for associating families on the projects 
gave no evidence that conditions relative to informal associations on the proj- 
ects were radically different from those found in the control communities. 18/ 



16/ For 162 pairs of families at Cumberland Homesteads correlation coefficients 
for families visiting most frequently were: (1) Total number of families 
contacted in visiting .27; (2) Number of families visited who returned the 
visit (mutual relationship) .22; (3) Husbands' monthly attendance in all church 
organizations on project .31; (4) Husbands' attendance at non-church organi- 
zations on project .14; (5) Number of formal organizations contacted on 
project .29; (6) Expenditures for social participation and recreation .14; 
(7) Clothing expenditures .08. It is interesting to note that the correlation 
coefficient for the husbands' monthly attendance in church organizations for 
the year previous to settlement was insignificant (.03), but for non-church 
organizations it was .20. For the individual projects combined in Table 8 
under the category "Projects," the 63 pairs of visiting families at Ashwood. 
39 at Bosque, 52 at Penderlea, and 32 at Ropesville, the correlation coeffi- 
cients for expenditures for social participation and recreation were .39, .15, 
.18, and -.099, respectively. 

17/ In addition to the coefficients in Table 8, the coefficient for the total 
value of living for 162 pairs of visiting Cumberland Fiomesteads families was 
.11. The coefficients for this factor for the separate projects included in 
Table 8 as resettlement projects with the number of pairs involved in the 
calculations were as follows: Ashwood 63 pairs, coefficient -.13; Bozque 38 
pairs, coefficient .18; Penderlea 51 pairs, coefficient .31; Ropesville 32 
pairs, coefficient .32. 

18/ Of the control communities only South Holland had more than 50 families 
for which these data were available. At Klamath Falls where there were rela- 
tively few associating families with blood kinship bonds and high geographical 
mobility, husbands of similar ages associated. For 50 associating families the 
correlation coefficient indicating this relationship was .57, for 49 pairs of 
non-associating families living close together the comparable coefficient was 
.005, and for 63 pairs of families paired by random selection the comparable 
coefficient was -.15. For this Klamath Falls group other coefficients were 
number of organizations contacted by the family, automobile operating expenses, 
and total value of family living. The correlation calculated coefficients 
indicating the similarity of families in these respects were .42, .53, and 
.50, respectively, but the number of pairs of families involved was only 21, 27, 
and 27, respectively. For non-associating families paired because of proximity 
of dwelling these coefficients for 28, 37, and 35 families were .C9, -.07, and 
.14; for families paired at random -.04, .01, and .20. 



- 32 - 



(5) A test study of association made at Dyess in April 1938 (22 months after 
the original field work) indicated that families who associated tended to be 
equal in social and economic status. 19/ There was apparently no tendency for 
associating families to be less similar at this later period than at the time of 
the first study. It is also interesting that the matter of distance played an 
even less important part at the time the test study made in 1938 was completed. 
This and first-hand observations lead to the conclusion that new associations 
established on the projects were usually between persons v/ho were more similar 
in social and economic status than were those whose associations were dissolved. 

Blood Kinship as a Tie 

Communities that attain high degrees of solidarity and integration are 
composed to a considerable extent of families that are bound together by 
kinship ties. Other things being equal, the greater the consanguinity among 
families, the greater will be the homogeneity and solidarity of a communi- 
ty. 

On the projects, approximately 5 percent of the families who associated 
with the interviewed families were related to them by blood. Of course, this 
was not so large a percentage as in the communities of residence previous to 
resettlement, in which 28 percent of the families who visited and bor- 
rowed and 37 percent of those who exchanged work were related (Table 9) . 

Kinship seemed to be a more significant factor in the informal group 
life of the older communities of the South (those from which most of the 
settlers for Southern projects originally came), the Indian-Mexican village 
of Tortugas, and South Holland. In the latter two communities 41 and 64 
percent, respectively, of those visiting interviewed families were kin. Rela- 
tively fewer families were related by blood at Klamath Falls than in any of the 
4 control groups. In fact, the families of the urbanized Klamath Falls area 
and the recently settled areas in the Southwest, from which the settlers 
at Bosque Farms and Ropesville originally came, were less frequently tied by 
bonds of kinship than were any of the groups studied. This indicates, perhaps, 
that one of the significant differences in community organization in the 
older established areas of the East and Southeast and the newer areas of the 
West may be traced to the more significant influence of kinship as a bond in 
the former. 



19/ Since most families on the projects have children in school, the school 
is a medium through which families may be investigated. Through question- 
naires filled out by the children the association pattern of visiting fami- 
lies at Dyess was learned and mapped. The teachers rated the families on 
the basis of socio-economic status and level of living as determined by their 
impressions of the children. For 136 pairs of families who were reported 
by the children as engaging in mutually visiting one another, the correlation 
coefficient for the ranking given by the teachers was ,20. For 139 pairs of 
families associating most frequently, the correlation coefficient for this item 
was .25. Except for the recent check-up study made at Dyess in April 1938, all 
data for the present study were from personal interviews with each family. 



- 33 - 



Table 9.- Percentage of families related by blood to the interviewed 
family with whom they had specified associations, previous to 
settlement and at time of study, 1 reclamation and 7 
resettlement projects and 4 control groups 1/ 



• 

Residence : 




Associations 




Visit 


: Exchange work: 


Borrow 


: None 2/ 


Previous to settlement: 










7 resettlement projects 


28 


37 


28 




Ashwood 


39 


32 


45 




Bosque 


22 


34 


15 


■ ■ . : ■ 


Cumberland 


25 


38 


35 




Dyess 


30 


39 


28 




Penderlea 


oc 
CD 


31 


26 




Ropesville 


lo 


/do 


i f 




oKyixne rarms 




37 


24 




Klamatn rails 




4 3/ 


7 3/ 




At time of study: 










7 resettlement projects 


6 


6 


4 





Ashwood 


7 


11 


5 


1 


Bosque 


21 


16 3/ 


17 3/ 





Cumberland 


6 


7 


2 





Dyess 





6 


3 





Penderlea 


o 

2 


2 


3 





Ropesville 


2 


6 


5 





Skyline Farms 


8 


8 


5 





Klamath Falls 


10 


15 





1 


Tortugas 


41 


86 3/ 


43 3/ 


1 


South Holland 


64 


86 


73 


12 


Neighborhood of - 










Bosque 


40 


100 3/ 


50 3/ 


10 


Cumberland 


38 


28 


24 


4 



1/ See Table 1 for number of interviewed families and Table 30, appendix, for 
total number of associating families. The basis for the percentages in this 
table is the number of associating families for which data concerning the 
subject involved were available. 



2/ Do not visit, exchange work, or borrow although living close together. 
3/ Less than 15 cases involved. 

Only at South Holland and in the old Indian and Spanish-American com- 
munities in the neighborhood of Bosque, where a large proportion of the families 
were interrelated by kinship, did blood relationships exist among any consider- 
able number of the non-associating families who dwelt nearby. Elsewhere fami- 
lies traveled long distances in order to associate with relatives. Parents in 
associating families were most frequently the brothers and/or sisters or the 
mothers and/or fathers of the parents of interviewed families {Table 10). 



- 34 - 



Table 10.- Percentage of visiting families reported as having specified blood 
relationship with the interviewed families, at time of study and 
previous to settlement, 1 reclamation and 7 resettlement 
projects and 4 control groups 1/ 



: Residen ce 

Relationship :7 resettlement : Klamath : : South : Neighborhood of ,-, 

: projects : Falls : Tortugas ; Holland : Bosque : Cumberland 



Previous to 
settlement : 



Total 


100 


100 










No relationship 


72 


82 










Father or mother 


7 













Brother or sister 


12 


13 










Nephew or niece 


1 













Uncle or aunt 


3 


4 










Other 


5 


1 










, time 














if study: 














Total 


100 


100 


100 


100 


100 . 


100 


No relationship 


94 


90 


59 


36 


60 


62 


Father or mother 


1 


. 


17 


14 


4 


11 


Brother or sister 


3 


6 - 


14 


33 


18 


. 14 


Nephew or niece 


2/ 





2 


2 


5 . 


. 1 


Uncle or aunt 


2/ 





2 


3 





3 


Other 


2 


4 


6 


12 


13 . 


9 



1/ See Table 1 for number of interviewed families and Table 30, appendix", for 
total number of associating families. The basis for the percentages in this 
table is the number of associating families for which data concerning the sub- 
ject involved were available. 

2/ Less than 0.5 percent. ... . ; . .. 

Children Playing Together 

Approximately 70 percent of the families who associated (by visiting, 
borrowing, or exchanging work) with the interviewed families on the 7 resettle- 
ment projects had children who played v/ith those of the interviewed families 
(Table 11). In the communities of residence previous to resettlement the 
corresponding percentage was only about 61. Associating families on the proj- 
ects, however, were more frequently of the same age and consequently had chil- 
dren of comparable ages. In South Holland, where blood ties were relatively im- 
portant, few children of associating families were of comparable ages; but where 
the differences were not too great the children played together as much as in 



- 35 - 



Table 11.- Percentage of families whose children played with those of the inter- 
viewed family with whom they had specified associations, at time 
of study and previous to settlement, 1 reclamation and 7 re- 
settlement projects and 4 control groups 1/ 



: Associations 


Residence : 


Visit 


: Exchange work: 


Borrow 


None 2/ 


Previous to settlement: 










T' resettlement projects 


60 


63 


60 








oo 






Bosque 


58 


53 


60 




Cumberland 


66 


85 


100 


• 


Dyess 


64 


63 


62 




Penderlea 


53 


76 


60 




Ropesville 


50 


69 


77 




Skyline Farms 


53 


67 


40 




Klamath Falls 


44 


46 3/ 


40 3/ 




At time of study: 










7 resettlement projects 


69 


72 


70 


31 


Ashwood 


70 


77 


73 


29 


Bosque 


50 


50 3/ 


58 3/ 


24 


Cumberland 


89 


75 


86 


48 


Dyess 


73 


74 


70 


36 


Penderlea 


66 


66 


61 


13 


Ropesville 


46 


53 


72 . 


30 


Skyline Farms 


63 


62 


77 


27 


Klamath Falls 


51 


30 


38 


23 


Tortugas 


56 


100 3/ 


75 3/ 


31 


South Holland 


26 


29 


25 


16 


Neighborhood of - 










Bosque 


52 


75 3/ 


80 3/ 


19 


Cumberland 


38 


70 


57 


10 



1/ See Table 1 for number of interviewed families and Table 30, appendix, for 
total number of associating families. The basis for the percentages in this 
table is the number of associating families for which data concerning the sub- 
ject involved were available. 



2/ Do not visit, exchange work, or borrow although living close together. 
3/ Less than 15 cases involved. 



any other community. Such associations between children tend to make for great- 
er community integration 20/ as the community becomes older, for among older 
people community ties established in childhood may be particularly strong, 
especially where kinship strengthens the bond. 



20/ Loomis, Charles P., The Development of Planned Rural Communities, Rural 
Sociology, Vol. 3, No. 4, Louisiana State University Press, University, Louisi- 
ana, December 1938. 



- 36 - 

Distance as a Factor in Integration 

Another reason the children of associating families played together 
more frequently on the resettlement projects than in the other communities 
was the shorter distance between homes (Table 12). On the . resettlement proj- 
ects the families visiting most frequently lived a little less than a third of a 
mile apart, whereas the families v/ho visited the interviewed families most 



Table 12.- Average distance in miles between homes of visiting families 
and nearest non-associating families, at time of study -and 
previous to settlement, 1 reclamation and 7 re- 
settlement projects and 2 control groups 







Distance in miles between homes 


O i — 








IclUxXXSo 




l\ y o X vl t;? ii V y 




: Families : 


Families ranking 


li yj 11 




Total 


:visited most: 


fifth in frequency 


associating 




1/ 


; frequently : 


of visitation 


families 


Previous to settlement: 










7 resettlement projects 


1.1 


1.0 


1.4 




Ashwood 


1.8 


1.1 


3.2 




Bosque 


2.3 


1.9 


3.5 




Cumberland 


.9 


.9 


.5 




Dyess 


1.1 


1.0 


1.4 




Penderlea 


1.0 


.8 


1.2 




Ropesville 


2.8 


2.7 ■ 


3.1 




Skyline Farms 


.7 


.8 


.3 




Klamath Falls 


2.9 


3.2 


2.0 




At time of study: 










7 resettlement projects 


0.4 


0.3 


0.6 


. 0.3 


Ashwood 


.5 


.4 . 


.7 


.6 


Bosque 


.8 


.8 


.8 


.5 


Cumberland 


.2 


.2 


.4 


.2 


Dyess 


.3 


.3 


■ .4 


■ .3 


Penderlea 


.6 


.4 


.8 


.5 


Ropesville 


.6 


.7 


.6 


.7 .. 


Skyline Farms 


.4 


.4 


.2 


.3 


Klamath Falls 


5.3 


5.9 


3.8 


.4 


South Holland 


3.3 


2.2 


6.3 


.1 


Tortugas 


.5 


.5 


.4 - 


.1 . 



1/ See Table 1 for number of interviewed families and. Table 30, appendix, for 
total number of associating families. Families visiting interviewed families 
were ranked on basis of frequency of visitation. In this table only families 
ranking first and fifth were included. 



- 37 - 



frequently in the communities of residence previous to resettlement lived 
approximately one mile from the interviewed family. At Tortugas the average 
distance was slightly over half a mile, but at South Holland and on the Klamath 
Falls irrigation project it was much greater, being more than 3 and slightly 
less than 6 miles respectively. 

The geographical factor of distance was more important in determin- 
ing associations at the resettlement projects than elsewhere. Lack of ade- 
quate transportation facilities, bad roads, and in some cases, the existence 
of huge drainage ditches with banks 40 to 50 feet high also tended to mould 
associational patterns. Those families who did not have relatives or old 
acquaintances living on the same projects tended to strike up acquaintanceships 
with their next-door neighbors. As previously stated, approximately 40 per- 
cent of the settlers on the projects became acquainted through a formal call 
paid by one of the families involved. Such calls were usually made to or by 
neighboring families. For example, of the 621 visiting relationships on the 
Cumberland Homesteads project, 562 were between families living less than one- 
fourth of a mile apart. Of the remaining 59 families living more than one- 
fourth of a mile apart, 30 were relatives or had been acquainted previous to 
resettlement (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). Thus, the few families that traveled con- 
siderable distances to visit v/ere related by blood or had been acquainted in 
the community of previous residence. 

On all the projects families were continually making new friendships 
with families living farther from home than the original associates. As 
the roads were improved and as settlers bought more automobiles, the network 
of relationships was naturally changed and the local groupings became less 
integrated. Families were, however, probably finding more compatible associ- 
ates. If this is so, it may mean that groups will become more integrated, 
rather than less so, even if local geographical groupings are shattered. 

Common Organizational Participation 

Few processes in social change are of more far-reaching importance than 
secularization. Church participation on the resettlement projects did not 
indicate that a trend toward secularization predominated. In fact, almost as 
large a proportion of associating families attended the same local church on 
the projects (approximately 46 percent) as did associating families in the com- 
munities of previous residence (approximately 51 percent). In the Catholic 
Indian-Mexican village of Tortugas all visiting families attended the same 
church; at South Holland and Klamath Falls almost three-fourths and one-fourth 
respectively of the families visiting most frequently also attended the same 
church (Table 13) . 

A consideration of homogeneity of visiting families with respect to 
church membership revealed that 25 percent of the pairs of visiting families 
on the 7 resettlement projects reported 2 to 4 parents belonging to the same 
denominations while 37 percent reported such a relationship in the communities 
of previous residence. At the time of study this percentage for Klamath Falls 
was 12; for South Holland, 64; and for Tortugas, 100. Thus, on a comparative 



- 38 - 




.5, 
-c 



^ :3 ^ 5 CO 



• e o 




=7 



L Ji 



^ . 




tr 

CL CC 
CD 
Q CD 

LJJ I — ' 



<: a 

3 CL. 
Cr <t 

< 

Z LU 

cn CO 



CO 
Q 



5; I- 

I- w 

UJ UJ 

m 2 
o 

CO m 

Q. 

— Q 
X Z 
CO < 
Z _l 
O CC 

— 'U 

h- m 

< 5 

_l 3 

tu O 



> 



O LU 



CD 

i- 

S LL 



*-< "* 03 C a> ' 

O >, J3 <u J3 4J 

4J a> 

to 3 2 CO 

ti> j-j ■a — < 

hO 03 0) 0) aj > 

CO O O T3 
Q. 0) 

>i 0) <D X3 03 CO 

■-I e t. CO -u <D 

t-< — I --I cd o 
aJ 4J 03 '-I o C 

<D 0) J3 -H csj 
<D CS T3 J-^ 
60 .-I •"-> c CO 

£3 4-5—1 CO — I — " 

—I S a> T3 

C- 4J 1^ CO 

3 ctf "i-t <D -f^ • 

•O a> C L, e 
T3 x: 0) — I o <u 
CO (D 4-> -Q --I J3 x: 
tio-H o m ^ 

a O. X3 Q) 4-5 

-13 > t, >» bO 
O -1-5 O .-I C 
3 o cd i3 C -I 

o o x: to o 4-5 

4-J CO 

bO C^ a n-i 13 CO 

C CO o <D 
.-H -( o) n ^^ > 

Cd <— ( 4-5 CO 0) 

E ^ cB C o > -t^ 

t- a> o o c nj t. 

o s -rH -H nj C o 

T3 t4 Q. 

C C3 CI) (U D 

-H 4J — 1 r-l ^ 4-5 

o <u c o 

^ 05 CP O 05 CO 
O ^ Ci 05 

O -H 05 03 O 

d C, r-H to Li 1-1 

o a 05 a a. »H 

-I T3i3 E 

-4^ t-* 05 05 cd 

cs <M ,-H i3 ji: 1-. 

S O O H 4-5 



CO 



05 



O C 4^ 

«-l O ■< -r-l - O 

~-i 4J bOE 

05 4-5 -a a a 

£i aJ • 05 05 t- 

4J o CO S E o 
O Ck ® o 

C i-H — I O .-H O X 

-I Q. 4J ^ 

05 CO 05 4-5 03 

05 « C! t. 05 !-. 

O 4-3 O 03 O -o 

C! -rt 03 «-i n3 

aj 03 j-5 c o 05 x: 

4-5 4J u) O 40 £> 

03 C i-i o 

05 05 >» 03 T3 X3 

T3 03 (-< "-I 3 05 S 

05 C O 4J 

«-i C M O C 05 

o a c > --' 03 

03 -fH 4-3 03 03 O 

05 t, 4-5 ni U 3 x: 

a « D. cTiJ 

C bO 03 u 

a3 3 cd o) 

4-5 —I > - 05 3 

ti ti 05 x: 3 03 

O . 3 4J 5 

a ^ 03 — ' O 05 

S O bO.-i L, 03 

-H Cd 3 X: 03 05 
K -I 3 C3 S -H 
05 t-< 05 Cd ^ 

x:; irf 05 o — I 
^ • c° •= S 

;2 ° ^ =^ 

03 3 -O 4-5 *-i 
05 05 3 XO 

3 05 t4 

5-H cd 
C3 O £ O n-l 

-H ,-H 4-3 . - — I 3 

•CJ 03 05 ^ S £2. 

3 t> -H c td O 

—I 05 x: 3 s-i 0. 

r) 03 03 
Ck 05 3 03 

cd 4-3 3 O 05 3 03 

S t5 —1 — 1 --< -" O 

05 I— f --H -(-5 E 

03 «-s cd — < 

O 05 i-l e CO 05 

x: t., x3 05 cd x3 
E-* Q. 4-3 t-, t-i ;> E- 



4J S 05 
cd Q. 05 



- 39 - 



^ 



■0-— -"^O...., 




4 ■^'T 




< 

o 
< 

CO • 

uj (O 

- n 

_l CD 



Q I- 

UJ If) 



5 03 
< 5 



t- UJ 
UJ 5 

CD UJ 
_l 

<n I- 

CL I- 

— UJ 

X CO 
CO 

z 

o 

I- 
< 



?s"° 



00 



- 40 - 



Table 13.- Percentage of families attending the church attended by the inter- 
viewed family with whom they had specified associations, at time of study 
and previous to settlement, 1 reclamation and 7 resettlement projects 

and 4 control groups 1/ 



: Association s 

Residence : Visit : Exchange work: Borrow : None 2/ 



Previous to settlement: 



? resettlement projects 52 51 49 

Ashwood 53 50 .52 

Bosque 23 24 27 

Cumberland 44 40 22 

Dyess 58 59 56 

Penderlea 37 27 30 

Ropesville 48 40 41 

Skyline Farms 52 47 46 

Klamath Falls 33 29 3/ 22 3/ 

At time of study: 

7 resettlement projects 44 49 48 40 

Ashwood 71 86 83 40 

Bosque 56 62 3/ 58 3/ 33 

Cumberland 66 40 67 68 

Dyess 47 51 49 45 

Penderlea 40 27 40 32 

Ropesville 23 23 23 17 

Skyline Farms 31 42 42 25 

Klamath Falls 21 20 30 26 

Tortugas 100 100 3/ 100 3/ 

South Holland 61 71 79 
Neighborhood of - 

Bosque 82 80 3/ 62 3/ 63 

Cumberland 32 39 24 25 



1/ See Table 1 for number of interviewed families and Table 30, appendix, for 
total number of associating families for which data concerning the subject 
involved were available. 

2/ Do not visit, exchange work, or borrow although living close together. 
3/ Less than 15 cases involved. 

basis i religious bonds among associating families on the resettlement projects 
exist less frequently than at South Holland and Tortugas, but more frequently 
than at Klamath Falls. 



That common denominational adherence was almost as frequent among as- 
sociating families on the projects as among those reporting such data for their 
previous residences further indicates that religiosity persists and that 



- 41 - 



Table 14.- Percentage of families participating in non-religious organizations 
attended by the interviewed family with whom they hc.d specified associ- 
ations, at time of study and previous to settlement, 1 reclama- 
tion and 7 resettlement projects and 4 control grov.ps 1/ 



Associ ations 



Residence : Visit : Exchange work; Borrow : None 2/ 



Previous to settlement: 

7 resettlement projects 20 20 21 

Ashwood 34 19 38 

Bosque 17 26 23 

Cumberland 29 12 19 

Dyess 21 22 22 

Penderlea 14 22 13 

Ropesville 29 33 31 

Skyline Farms 3 7 

Klamath Falls 28 3/ 3/ 

At time of study; 

7 resettlement projects 44 49 42 42 

Ashwood 47 43 38 40 

Bosque 24 38 3/ 33 3/ 16 

Cumberland 84 94 87 87 

Dyess 43 49 42 39 

Penderlea 23 12 20 6 

Ropesville 76 81 68 70 

Skyline Farms 3 4 2 

Klamath Falls 50 45 50 36 

Tortugas 3/ 3/ 

South Holland 15 37 20 7 
Neighborhood of - 

Bosque 5 3/ 3/ 4 

Cumberland 3 3 5 



1/ See Table 1 for number of interviewed families and Table 3D, appendix, for 
total number of associating families. The basis for the percentages in this 
table is the number of associating families for which data concerning the sub- 
ject involved were available. 

2/ Do not visit, exchange work, or borrow although living close together. 
3/ Less than 15 cases involved. 



secularization may not make greater inroads into the social life of the project 
groups than it did in the communities of previous residence. It should be re- 
membered, however, that extreme homogeneity with respect to church membership 
does not preclude a lack of community solidarity; on the contrary, it may cause 
bitter factional strife. But wherever a single church, or any other organiza- 
tion with a large membership, dominates the social life and economic cooperation 
of a community, there is evidence favoring the assumption that integration is 
more likely than would be the case if special-interest groups predominated. 



- 42 - 



-P r-Tl 




1 




nd 




<iH 






w w 








rH 












O 








© 


•ri O 










>• U 










© EiO 








P 


















«• 




o 








© 


J-i 5-1 










cS -P 




bO 




a* 


© !h 




•H 




CO 


>, O 











o 








n 


«> 




•« 


»• 


" 


bJO CVJ 


CO 








pj 


Pa 




CO 





•H (i 


•H 




rH 


© 


-P o 


^ 








oJ ^ 


CO 









Pa 


ri 


rH 




!^ 


■H >> 


o 






Pi 


o 'is 


•H 






— 


■H P 


-P 




© 




-P -P 


cc! 1 


ri 


CO 


u to 


rH 

© 




•H 
rH 


g 


A *^ 










o 










CO 


fcJO 








© © 






«• 


•« 




•H 




1 




rH .H 


-p 




CO 


© 




•H 


1 © 


rH 


•g -p 


69 




P^rH 


cS -P 


•H 







•H 


<iH OS 


>> 




Pi 

— 


»• 




<U 






eS 


o 5 


O 















1 


rH 


© 


CO 




ri 


U 


U 03 


© 


© 


«® 


© 


3 -P 








O 


cS 








© © 


40 








-P 'O 








CO 


^ o 


© 






CO 











© 




© 








•> -P 








to sij 




© 






© 




rH 


1 




•ri E 




-P 


!H 




^ © 




-P 


© 




W rH 




© 






Pi -P 




to 






O 4^ 








rH 


■ri © 




u 







-p to 






■0 




OJ © 








© 


rH ti 










© 


















CO 













ri 










•H CO 










-P 











•H ri 











(0 o 










•H -H 








1 










CO 


<H 1 








-li 

*• 






•9 


o 3 








rH 


rH 








OJ 


© O 








-P 


bD © 











(d t-< 








E-I 










«• 


ri rH 










© 




















u o 






CO 




© <iH 














•H 










© 


i ri 




ri 


CO 




• © 




•H 


ri 








-P 







rH © 




•H 


•H 


© 


r-H 




CO 


•P 


-P 


© -P 




•H 






r-i 




> rH 




^ © 






© 




Oj CO 










EH 











0000 



rH O "^l* O 
rH OJ 



^000 



W rH 

rH W 



O rH rH O 



O O rH to 



CO ICOltO CM 



O rH O rH 



O O rH to 



O CM CM in 



iH CM 10 



I 

-P 

© 

© o 

u ^ 

O ai U 

r-i (0 U 

eS fii © 

rH e +> © 

^ C O ri ri 

S ej Vi © 5 

E o K O 
oJ 



000 



000 



O to CO 



1^3 CM 
rH CM 



a a 



O O CO 



to tx) irj 



rH O Oi 



O rH O 



O CO O 
rH rH CM 



•<e( CO 00 



O CT> 
CM 



•H 



CO 



CO <1 

to 



rH C\i 



?D to 

in CO 



to 

CM CD 



rH LD 

to CO 



C» CO 

10 



O CO 
rH <>t< 



CM O 



CO 



CM 



CO 



LO 



CO 



o 

rH 



co 



to 



to 



o> 



CM 



U 

© 

Pa U 
O O 
U 
O 



© ii 

Pa © 

a. +i 
o ri 



© 

0:; 





CO 


rH 






10 




CM 


CO 






























© 












•H 
























•ri 

























© 


1 










Pa 








1 




to 


Si 






















-p 

















u 




1 




ri 




© 










u 




© 




© 


© 


© 














© 






1 
















© 










© 












E-i 







OS 


qS 


q{ 




1 












•ri 





CO 




CO 


M 




<;h ■ 


■ri 


« 


•ri 












© 







W 


to 


f-. 






-P 


to 


©" 


© 


• 


© 


CO 


CtJ 


■ri 




•ri 


•P 






rH 


pif 




ri 






•ri 







© 


1 





am 




to 


it 




!^ 


<+H 




rH 














rA 
P3 


rP 


UJ 












1— 1 
Pi 




•ri 


• 






•ri 


• 




Pa 




ri 


-P 


(0 







•ri 




CIS 


© 






(-V 

P 


rH 


•ri 


-p ^ 







eJ 




(Si 






© 


-p 





u 





© 







CO 


© 




to 


-p 


CO 


Ph 




-P 


ri 




a! 





© 




•ri 


^1 










M 





<^ 


© 


-P 





U 









r-i 


© 







U 




rH 


5-1 




H! 


© 


ri 


Oj 


a 


© 


•ri 


cP 














rH 


CO 


CO 




ri 






© 






© 


ri 


© 


xi 


OS 










CO 







P^ 


© 




•ri 


ri 




a 






ri 




-P 




-p 


Cm 




:s 


u 











-p 






to 




Cm 


© 


Pm 


CO 


•ri 


r-i 
r-i 








© 


© 


aS 


Sh 


ri 





rH 


rH 







•ri 






- 43 - 



The extent of family participation in non-religious organizations cannot 
always be taken as an indication of community integration. In some societies 
where individualism and atomization are prevalent there are m.any special-interest 
groups. Families join hands to achieve some common end. Thus one family may 
belong to several special-interest groups and associate with another family 
which belongs to entirely different special-interest groups, A community com- 
posed of such families and relationships would probably not be so highly inte- 
grated as communities in which all individuals belonged to the same groups and 
had the same interests. At Tortugas no visiting families had common membership 
in non-church organizations and at South Holland only 15 percent of the visiting 
families had such membership, but in the highly secularized community on the 
Klamath Falls irrigation project one-half of the visiting families had such 
membership in common. This is largely accounted for by the fact that at 
Tortugas and South Holland the church dominates the informal social participa- 
tion of the communities while at Klamath Falls it plays a minor part, allowing 
special-interest groups and other organizations to become more important. On 
the seven resettlement projects, 44 percent of the visiting families belonged 
to common non-church organizations as compared with less than 20 percent in the 
communities of previous residence (Table 14, p. 41) . 

On the projects there were a number of special-interest groups as well 
as general organizations, many of which were sponsored by the local administra- 
tion. Some projects had experts who gave a great deal of their time to the 
organization of such non-church activities. 

Social Distance Between Associating Families 

Informal associations previous to resettlement were most frequently 
between renters 21/ or between renters and owners, but other tenure combinations 
were also common (Table 15) . Frequently when renters or croppers associated 
with owners the families were related by ties of blood. Often sons or daughters 
whose parents were non-owners associated with sons or daughters of owners. Most 
of the settlers who were not farmers previous to settlement were unskilled 
workers in cotton mills and mines. As might be expected, their families 
most frequently associated' with the families of other unskilled or semi-skilled 
workers. 

On the 7 resettlement projects most of the associations were among fami- 
lies of the same tenure status. This is to be expected since all farmers 
living on the projects as settlers automatically became potential owners. 
There are some who argue that similarity in tenure status will make for com- 
munity integration as integration is largely dependent upon homogeneity. 

Common Possession of Property as a Social Bond 

In those rural communities such as old Russian Mir, or in rural German, 
Russian, Mexican, and Hindu villages, high degrees of social integration and 
solidarity have been attained. Such solidarity and homogeneity generally may be 
pronounced when land and other property is held in common in some form of 
tenure arrangement. 



21/ A number of renters had been croppers previous to becoming rehabilitation 
clients in the communities of residence previous to resettlement. 



- 44 - 



Common ov/nership of property by associating families was unusual for 
all groups studied except for the families exchanging work with the interviewed 
families at South Holland (Table 16). On the 7 resettlement projects, the 
percentages of families who owned property in common and who also exchanged 

Table 16.- Percentage of families having property in common with the inter- 
viewed family with whom they had specified associations, at time 
of study and previous to settlement, 1 reclamation and 7 re- 
settlement projects and 4 control groups 1/ 



Residence 



Visit 



Associations 



Exchange work: Borrow 



None 2/ 



Previous to settlement; 



7 resettlement projects 1 

Ashwood 

Bosque 4 

Cumberland 1 

Dyess 1 

Penderlea 2 

Ropesville 2 

Skyline Farms 2 

Klamath Falls 3 



4 


11 

2 

4 
11 

6 



a 3/ 



3 

8 
3 
2 
5 
2 

7 



3/ 



At time of study: 



7 resettlement projects 4 

Ashwood 1 

Bosque 1 

Cumberland 4 

Dyess 5 

Penderlea 6 

Ropesville 12 

Skyline Farms 

Klamath Falls 3 

Tortugas 1 

South Holland 4 
Neighborhood of - 

Bosque 5 

Cumberland 1 



9 
2 

15 
10 
10 

11 


12 


33 



3/ 



3/ 



3/ 
4 



7 
1 

8 
7 
6 

15 

4 


12 



3/ 



3/ 



3/ 




4/ 





4/ 

1 

1 



1 


4 






1/ See Table 1 for number of interviewed families and Table 30, appendix, for 
total number of associating families. The basis for the percentages in this 
table is the number of associating families for which data concerning the subject 
involved were available. 

2/ Do not visit, exchange work, or borrow although living close together. Such 
families may have associated in some other respect, as was obviously the case 
for those ovming property in common. 

3/ Less than 15 cases involved. - ■ .. ■ • 

4/ Less than 0.5 percent. 



- 45 - 



work with and borrowed from the interviewed families were 9 and 7 respectively. 
Even though these percentages were small, associating families on the projects 
more frequently owned property in common than did similar families in the com- 
munities of previous residence. Farm implements were the most frequent type 
of property owned in common. 

Most projects had cooperatives, but unfortunately the settlers did 
not think of such facilities as common property. In time they may come to do 
so, especially as they come more and more to determine the policies of the 
organizations . 

Similarity of Attitudes and Habits of 
Associating Families 

In this study no attitude scale was administered to the settlers on 
the projects. However, some makeshift approaches to the problem of whether 
associating families had similar attitudes were made. Even though different 
political affiliations in America have seldom been indicative of group as- 
sociation or membership in a given community, they may have some significance. 
Slightly over 91 percent of the interviewed families on the resettlement proj- 
ects reported that the families who associated with them by visiting, borrowing, 
and exchanging work had the same political affiliations (Table 17) . 22/ 
Almost as large a proportion (90 percent) of the families v/ho visited the set- 
tler families in the communities of previous residence were of the same politi- 
cal affiliation. Indeed, there v/as almost as great a homogeneity of political 
affiliations among the non-associating pairs of neighboring families as there 
was among the associating, with only 12 percent of the families having different 
political affiliations. These percentages of non-associating families with 
different political affiliations were 7 and 18 respectively for the Klamath 
Falls irrigation project and the South Holland Dutch community. It is thus 
evident that with regard to political affiliations associating families in all 
of the communities are only slightly more homogeneous than those of the nearest 
non-associating families. 

After the interviewed families had given the requested information rela- 
tive to the characteristics of the families with v/hom they associated, they 
were asked whether each of these families had habits similar to their own. 
This question was not explained further and it was expected that responses 
would in most cases be "yes." However, if members of an associating family 
did have habits which members of the interviewed families detested, the answer 
was expected to be "no." For 6 resettlement projects combined, both in old and 
new communities, between 84 and 88 percent of the interviewed families who re- 
sponded answered "yes" (Table 18) . For nearby non-associating families this 
percent was only 70. However, many (52 percent) of the interviewed families 
gave no report for nearby non-associating families. As would be expected, 
all groups of interviewed families less frequently answered "yes" in regard to 
nearby non-associating than for associating families. 



22/ Similar political affiliations meant that the husbands voted the same 
party ticket most frequently. If the husbands of either family or both families 
had not voted, the interviewed family's head was asked whether the visiting 
family had the same political leanings. No names of political parties were 
mentioned. 



- 46 - 



Table 17.- Percentage of families having political affiliations similar to 
those of the interviewed family with whom they had specified associ- 
ations, at time of study and previous to settlement, 1 recla- 
mation and 7 resettlement projects and 4 control groups 1/ 



Residence 



Associations 



Visit : Exchange work: Borrow : None 2/ 



Previous to settlement: 



7 resettlement projects 

Ashwood 

Bosque 

Cumberland 

Dyess 

Penderlea 

Ropesville 

Skyline Farms 
Klamath Falls 



90 
95 
91 
88 
91 
81 
95 
90 
83 



91 
97 
84 
90 
92 
79 
94 
96 

61 3/ 



88 
96 
80 
75 
90 
79 
92 
92 

64 3/ 



At time of study: 



7 resettlement projects 91 

Ashwood 93 

Bosque 93 

Cumberland 88 

Dyess 90 

Penderlea 88 

Ropesville 100 

Skyline Farms 92 

Klamath Falls 93 

Tortugas 59 

South Holland 92 
Neighborhood of - 

Bosque 87 

Cumberland 74 



92 

91 

92 3/ 

67 

94 

83 
100 

94 

80 
100 3/ 

95 

100 3/ 
76 



92 
90 

92 3/ 
100 
94 
84 
98 
98 
92 

86 3/ 

97 

90 3/ 
75 



88 
88 
88 
86 
91 
73 
99 
86 
93 
83 
82 

96 
74 



1/ See Table 1 for number of interviewed families and Table 30, appendix, for 
total number of associating families. The basis for the percentages in this 
table is the number of associating families for which data concerning the sub- 
ject involved were available. 

2/ Do not visit, exchange work, or borrow although living close together. 
3/ Less than 15 cases involved. 



- 47 - 



Table 18.- Percentage of families having habits similar to those of the 
interviewed family with whom they had specified associations, at 
time of study and previous to settlement, 1 reclamation and 
6 resettlement projects and 4 control groups 1/ 



: Associations 


Residence : 


Visit 


: Exchange work: 


Borrow 


: None 2/ 


Previous to settlement* 










R r«pc! p + + 1 pmprv + D TO i Pf; t / 


86 


84 


85 




Ashwood 


83 


70 


86 




Bosque 


83 


82 


80 




Dyess 


89 


86 


88 




Penderlea 


77 


87 


79 




Ropesville 


78 


72 


71 




Skyline Farms 


88 


91 


82 




Klamath Falls 


89 


92 4/ 


93 4/ 




At time of study: 










6 resettlement projects 3/ 


88 


88 


87 


70 


Ashwood 


86 


81 


85 


68 


Bosque 


87 


69 4/ 


83 4/ 


51 


Dyess 


90 


90 


87 


85 


Penderlea 


88 


89 


84 


51 


Ropesville 


83 


83 


90 


68 


Skyline Farms 


88 


84 


84 


61 


Klamath Falls 


93 


92 


89 


89 


Tortugas 


97 


100 4/ 


100 4/ 


81 


South Holland 


91 


95 


97 


64 


Neighborhood of - 










Bosque 


85 


100 4/ 


80 4/ 


67 


Cumberland 


83 


76 


79 


67 



1/ See Table 1 for number of interviewed families and Table 30, appendix, for 
total number of associating families. The basis for the percentages in this 
table is the number of associating families for which data concerning the sub- 
ject involved were available. 



2/ Do not visit, exchange work, or borrow although living close together. 
3/ Cumberland Homesteads was omitted because of the small number of cases in- 
volved . 

4/ Less than 15 cases involved. 



^ 48 - 



Without further explanation, the interviewed families were asked to 
list traits they had in common and in variance with the associating families 
that had not been previously touched upon in the interview. Space does not 
permit the listing of these traits. Suffice it to say that in all cases the 
associating families had more traits in common than the pairs of non-associating 
families living closest to one another. About one-third of the families as- 
sociating with the interviewed families were reported to have traits additional 
to those previously covered in the study in common with the interviewed families 
on the projects and in the communities of previous residence. For nearby non- 
associating families this comparable figure was only about 10 percent. South 
Holland associating and non-associating families indicated far greater homo- 
geneity with respect to additional traits than any other group. 

Summary 

(1) Forty percent of the reporting families on 6 resettlement projects 
stated that they had become acquainted with the families who were visiting 
them at the time of study through an actual visit on the part of one of the 
families involved. Almost one-fourth of the acquaintanceships were formed 
under fortuitous circumstances, such as meeting in the road, at work on the 
project, or at social gatherings. 

(2) A larger percentage of the 7 resettlement project families borrowed 
and exchanged work on the project during the year of study than in the community 
of residence previous to resettlement. 

(3) With only minor exceptions, associating families for all groups 
tended to resemble one another in the extent of formal and informal social 
participation and in the level of living. 

(4) The resettlement families reported that the families who visited 
them more frequently also exchanged work and borrowed farm equipment more fre- 
quently, thus combining social and economic activities to a greater extent at 
the time of study than was the case in the communities of previous residence. 
From this one might assume that, other things being equal, the informal associ-' 
ations on the projects had more significance to the families involved than those 
previous to resettlement. 

(5) As might be expected, resettled families did not associate with 
kinfolks as frequently after resettlement as before. In the communities of 
residence previous to resettlement, greater percentages of associations were 
between kinfolks in the older Southern communities, in the Dutch village of 
South Holland, in the Indian-Mexican village of Tortugas, and in the area sur- 
rounding Bosque Farms than in the more recently established Western com- 
munities . 

(6) Relatively more associating families on the resettlement projects 
had children who played together than did other groups. Since children are an 
integrating force in social life, they may tend to make up for the lack of 
consanguinity as far as the integration of the resettlement projects is con- 
cerned . 



- 49 - 



(7) Families associating with families living on the 7 resettlement 
projects lived closer together than was the case previous to resettlement. 
Distance played a very important part in associational patterns on the projects. 

(8) It was slightly less common on the project than in the community 
of previous residence that associating families attended or were members of the 
same church. There was no evidence that resettlement has resulted in seculari- 
zation. Homogeneity as to church membership was greatest for the Dutch com- 
munity of South Holland and the Indian-Mexican village of Tortugas and least 
for the Klamath Falls group. The resettled families were between these ex- 
tremes . 

(9) Associating families on the 7 projects more frequently had common 
membership in non-religious organizations and cooperatives than was the case 
for all other groups, with the exception of Klamath Falls. Thus the importance 
of the cooperative and other project organizations is apparent. 



- 50 - 



Chapter IV 
PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL AGENCIES 



When, as is so frequently true, the family cannot satisfy the social 
needs of individuals, certain requirements are met through cooperative effort 
among families and individuals. The adequacy of the social agencies that 
tend to develop in response to such needs determines in no small measure 
the level of living of families. In American society their failure to function 
effectively will mean that individuals cannot develop well-rounded personalities 
or live the abundant life. Whenever these agencies patronize the entire family 
rather than individuals, the whole pattern of the community will be different 
than in communities in which social agencies tend to serve individuals. 23/ 
In the communities studied, churches tended to be the most familistic agencies; 
in other words, the stronger the influence of the church in the various com- 
munities, the more important the role of the family in the general organi- 
zational structure of the communities. 

In South Holland there are 5 Dutch Reformed Churches and few of the 
residents fail to attend the services held there. In Tortugas all of the fami- 
lies belong to the village Catholic Church. The other groups included in the 
study v/ere more heterogeneous in their church affiliations, especially in Klam- 
ath Falls where memberships were held in the Catholic, Episcopal, Latter Day 
Saints, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostial Holiness, and United 
Brethern Churches. On the resettlement projects and in the neighborhood groups 
studied there were no Catholics, and a majority of the Protestants were Mis- 
sionary Baptists and Methodists. 

Particip ation in Re ligio us Orga niza tions 

The churches on the various resettlement projects at the time of study 
had been too recently established to take on any permanent aspects. All 
types of makeshift arrangements, with respect to both ministers and equipment, 
were in use. On one project rude sun shades were thrown up for Sunday Schools, 
on another the school building was used, and on another the community hall. 
One project had only one minister for all denominations; others had several. 
With the churches in such an embryo state, attendance figures may not be sig- 
nificant other than to point out the possible future trends. 

Notwithstanding the fact that on most of the 7 resettlement projects 
church facilities at the time of the field work were inferior to those now 
available, the average number of meetings attended by the settlers and their 
families was relatively high. The num.ber of meetings the settler children 
attended per year while on the project (66 for those 15 years of age and over 
and 45 for those under 15 years of age) was practically the same as that in the 
community of previous residence (Table 19 and Fig. 9) . The average number of all 
church meetings attended by husbands and wives during the year previous to 
settlement (40 and 43 respectively) somewhat exceeded that for the year after 
(Table 20 and Fig, 10). The average number of meetings attended by husbands 



23/ Loomis, Charles P., The Development of Planned Rural Communities, op. cit., 
p. 385. 



- 51 - 



u o 



C -P 

O W 

'H « 

+> o 

•H t-- 

c 

oj 

o 

c 

>> o 

+> -H 

•H +> 

P 0) 



(0 -p 

tfl+> 



JO U 

S Pi 



CQ 10 

c 

rH .H 

d 

c 

W as 



(D 0) ] 



O T3 

-p to 

-P tH 

< o 



§5 



© o 



■p 



oooooooo 



OOOOOOOr-i o 



cH On t~- »-< ^<^ rH 
r<N,0 O t^rTMiMTNrOv 



-OX) 03 ltnO >r\<H 



> rH rH 



rH t~ no, ITN ca ON :Oi 



rHf- CO OC\JrHCr'r<> 
OD J- O CO O 



g Of ^ 
O O rH 
rH rH -rl 



Si 



3 OJ CO 

a" X) 



CO T) © r-» 



O rH 



ON^ 



vO C\J CVJ OMTN t-- p NO 

oJ^^^-I^uco(^i(^JCJ rH 



aDJOOOOlACMNO rH 
. _ , ^ ^ ^ rH 



rHONOOM/Nf-rHO 

CO rfN-J- O O rOi 

rHC\Jr-lrHrHrHK^rH 



OJONO_d-OJONOvO 
IfJrH Q -4-3 W O nO 



O r<> O CO nO CO rH 

ON On nO rH t-- rH ^(^ CVJ O 
J ITl OJ LTN-^ ir\ t---3- ^fN 



«! ^ fc rH 



LTN 
O <M 



OJ o 



O CO 




J- ^ o 

• • • 

OOOOOOOrH 



rHOOOrHCO-^ 



ro> <^ r^ -4 

rHOrHrHCJrHOlTN 
rH t\l "-l OJ 



(J\ O -O KN CVJ PCv O KN 
• ••«•••• 

KM5 o CO ir\_a- OJ -o 

iH rH rH rH rH rH 



ONas-d-KNLTvrH Ota 



nOooco-j-iaoo 

nO CO o t^cD inoo ON 
25 OJ t~- a t~- o 



+J CO -O 

© +> o 

CO o o 

© © ^ 



© u 



3 © CO © 
□"jD CO "a 
CO e © a 
- - o 3 
fci <; oQ o 



2 



O 
O Q 



O 
-A 



-nO-J-NO t—O O OJ o 

• ••••••• • 

ON ir> rH CTV O CO rH O 

OJ hTNrH hTNOJ KN J- OJ OJ 



CO ^0 ON OJ rH _^ O K^ O 

• ••••••• • 

_:t W P ON rH IAnO rH rH 

NrAOJOJCVJrHrHffN rH 



UMAO0NTNrHOt~- O 

• ••••»•• • 

rH_d-a3_:trHlfNC0.O O 

OJOJ WOJOJ-JrH rH 



CM ir\ IT* 0\ CO CO O lA o 

• ••••••• • 

sO OnOn VN_4 .TvOJ CJJ ON 

■J5 O rAco NO i> knnjS w 



~0 po, 

^rH 



q 

o 



d 3 

g +> -p 

8 L. 3 

rH O O 

W 6-1 W 



33 



o 

o 

J3 



) o 3 

CQ O 



- 52 - 



O O O O O x> O 



O ^ CO 00 

OOOOO-d-OO 



00 
O C\J 



> -p 
a> <u 



ooooooo^ 



ooooooo>-i 



w ^ CO ^ cr><N 

■-lOOO'-loj-'H 



rHOOOrHOsOi-H 



a, 4J 

Q.-H 



(0 e 

3 S 



O O J- O OS •-> ^ 
• • • • • • • 

rf^.^O-d■^<^oco rrs 



■O 
o o 



o o 



P;-OJ ON 
K^r<^ON^-4■O0^^'^ «-* 



o CVJ 



03 OJ O IXNCO OS ON f- 



C3J->-lc\JOC\JCMr\ 



OJ OJ 
iH CO 



CO 

OS r<N 



r-H KN 



> +> 

a) -a 

+3 



OS O IXN-Cf O iH O o o 
cocor— [--OsOnonOs ltn 

r-4 CVJ rH rH »-l iH rH 



J- ITS LTi J- -0, ^0 ITS in 
7-)C\liHT-1rHrHiHr-( 



CJ o 
LTlO 



ONO 0-:J-LrN UTNrH^ 



qN0J^<^^^^^^t-7-^-^ 
■ r~- o ^<^ 

OJ CM rH 



-J 



COCOOj-'-lrHirsrH 



COsOLTMnOSrHsOOO 



I- 



O IXS rH >rs 



c— coo^f^OC~OOs 



rvN i-Ts KN OJ hfs Jj- ^<^ < 



-i'cOOscoiHOJ-O^ 
• ••••••• 

Q-^ OsOSOSt^ J-rH 

-J ir> iH rfN rfN hfs irs-j 



O res 



corHos-oosOosm KN 



o o 

•H 1-1 

+J r-< « 

O O -H 

£-1 J, C 



O . 



lno^-^oj-^oo'<^ 



CO sO t~-so ^<^ J' CO 
• ••••••• 

^'-noOi-imLrsrH 



sO 



r<NKN0Nr--^-KNO o 



OON>OJOSO'-(KN 

r~-asLrsf--t~-Oso 1-1 



J- 

o o 



to tJ 
-p o 

I o p 











E 


to 




T3 








V 


OS 


iH 




fl 






CJ 






iH 




CCS 


ol 




lU 


iH 




as 




fH 


iH 




iH 


•H 


a 








<D Ih 






t> 


a 




to 


O 


3 (D 


(0 




U 


•H 




oi 










o 






tj) 










a, 


Sky 




3 


X 


O 3 

CO o 




Pe 


Ro 


Klam 


Tort 


Sout 



+> to -O 

a> +> o 



9 



1-4 iH © 

raC}O3Ot0®t0<W 
©®feC7*,OtQ'CJ©»H 

t,-nXiaa<»El(i.f>> 

Ot0O3>slDO^ 




- 53 - 



SETTLEMENT 



ASHWOOD 
PLANTATION 



BOSQUE FARMS 



CUMBERLAND 
HOMESTEADS 



DYESS COLONY 



PENDERLEA 
HOMESTEADS' 



AVERAGE 
NO. Q 
I 

63.4 



NEIGHBORHOOD OF 
BOSQUE FARMS 

NEIGHBORHOOD 
OF CUMBERLAND 
HOMESTEADS 



AVERAGE NUMBER 
40 60 



80 




100 



0.7 W////////////////^^^^^^ 



24.2 



54.6 




51.0 
47.9 

55.2 



ROPESVILLE 
FARMS 



SKYLINE FARMS 



7 RESETTLEMENT 
PROJECTS 



KLAMATH FALLS 

TORTUGAS 45.4 

SOUTH HOLLAND 97.8 



76.1 

30.6 




46.6 



Previous to settlement 
At time of study 







» 








1 









U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 35107 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 9.- Average number of meetings of religious organizations attended annually 

BY offspring LIVING AT HOME, AT TIME OF STUDY AND PREVIOUS TO SETTLEMENT, 
1 BECLAMATION AND 7 RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS AND 4 CONTROL GROUPS. 



- 54 - 



SETTLEMENT AVERAGE 
NO. 

i 

54.5 



10 



20 



AVERAGE NUMBER 
30 40 



50 



60 



70 



ASHWOOD 
PLANTATION 



BOSQUE FARMS 



CUMBERLAND 
HOMESTEADS 



53.9 

21.4 
28.8 

41.2 
23.3 









W//////////////M 





DYESS COLONY 



PENDERLEA 
HOMESTEADS 



ROPESVILLE 
FARMS 



SKYLINE FARMS--- 



7 RESETTLEMENT 
PROJECTS 



KLAMATH FALLS-- 

TORTUGAS 40.0 ^ 

SOUTH HOLLAND --- 62.9 

NEIGHBORHOOD OF 
BOSQUE FARMS 

NEIGHBORHOOD 
OFCUMBERLAND'""'^^-^ 

HOMESTEADS ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 35108 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 10.- Average number of meetings of religious organizations attended 
annually by parents, at time of study and previous to settlement, 
1 reclamation and 7 resettlement projects and 4 control groups. 




- 55 - 



and wives on the 7 resettlement projects was exceeded by none of the other 5 
groups except the highly religious South Hollanders and the Catholic Indian- 
Mexican farm laborers. 

Only in the case of Bosque and Cumberland Homesteads v/ere attendance 
figures for the families living in the neighborhood of the project available. 
For these two projects the average number of meetings attended for either the 
year previous to or the year after resettlement was in no case significantly 
smaller than that for the members of families dwelling in the neighborhood 
of these projects. 

Seldom would the individual members of rural families be found to at- 
tend so many church meetings as were reported for South Holland. In this vil- 
lage the average yearly attendance for all religious organizations for husbands 
was 63; for wives, 63, for children 15 years of age and over, 113, and for 
children under 15 years of age, 87 (Tables 19 and 20). At Klamath Falls, the 
comparable figures (11, 22, 29, and 26 respectively) rank lower than for any 
of the other residence groups included in the study. Thus the church partici- 
pation of the settler families, measured in terms of attendance, falls between 
that of the closely knit and religious Dutch community, South Holland, and the 
farm families on the Klamath Falls irrigation project with their highly ration- 
alized, mechanized, and commercialized enterprises. 

Attendance data for the children further indicates that resettlement has 
not secularized the families. This may be significant in view of the fact that 
the members of the farm families at Klamath Falls reported greater parti- 
cipation in church activities during the year previous to settlement than while 
living on the project during the year included in the study - an indication 
that resettlement might have affected church participation adversely. But 
the Klamath Falls families may have overestimated their attendance during the 
year previous to resettlement, for in most cases 9 years had elapsed since they 
had left those former communities they were asked to recall. However, the type 
of culture prevalent on this irrigation project may stress participation in 
non-church activities of 'a special-interest nature more than it nurtures and 
supports church organizations. 

Church Preaching Service 

On the whole, more members of the settlers' families attended church 
during the year previous to resettlement than during the period for which 
their attendance on the project was reported, For all settlers on the 7 proj- 
ects the greatest difference between the proportions who reported attendance 
during the year previous to and after resettlement was for wives, these pro- 
portions being 87 and 63 percent respectively (Table 21). After resettlement, 
larger proportions of children than of husbands and wives attended church preach- 
ing services (Tables 21 and 22). The resettlement project having the highest 
percentage of settler husbands attending church preaching service (84) was 
Ashwood Plantation. For all 7 projects all members attending church preaching 
service attended more frequently than did those who had attended church during 



- 56 - 



Table 21.- ^jinual participation of husbands and Tirives in religious orf;ai:izations , at time of study and 
previous to settlement, 1 reclamation and 7 resettlement projects and k control groups 



Residence 



Church 



t t Young peoDle's : Otiier religious 

Sunday School . organization : oreanizations 

Percentages : Average ly : Percentages : Average ;Percentages : Average rPercentages: Average 
attending ; attendance; attending ; attendance; attending > attendance; attendLig ; attendance 



Husbands - 

Previous to settlement; 
All resettlement 



projects 


83.7 


21.2 


60.8 


31.1 


12.2 


29.6 


1.1I 


13.0 


Ashwood 


95.2 


23-0 


8U.1 


55.2 


9 '5 


52.0 








Bosque 


56.2 


21.1. 


31; .U 


21.8 


3.1 


12.0 








Cumberland 


85.2 


21.5 


55»7 


31.3 


li;.2 


28.2 








Dyess 


8U.0 


19.2 


61.1 


3i;i 


IJ+.O 


28,0 


.2 


2l;.0 


Pender lea 


81;. 3 


21.5 


62.7 


30 .1+ 














Ropesville 


83.9 


32.8 


61; -5 


29. k 


22.6 


36.0 








Skyline Farms 


81.1 


22.3 


6O.7 


31.3 


9.0 


38.2 


9-0 


12.0 


Klamath Falls 


Ui.8 


21;. 


25.9 


21.6 


5.2 


28.0 








At time of study; 


















All resettlement 


















projects 


61 .5 


2U.1 


1+7.1 


29 .u 


h.6 


25.7 


2.7 


21.1 


Ashwood 


83.6 


31.1 


80 .3 


32.5 














Bosque 


66.7 


22.7 


38.1 


21.0 


1;.8 


12.0 








Cumberland 


66.3 


21.2 


38.0 


25.1 


3.8 


20.3 








Dyess 


56.1 


25.5 


U6.5 


31.8 


U.e 


30.0 


1.1; 


38.0 


Pender lea 


63.3 


25.9 


57.1 


29.5 








24.5 


13.0 


Ropesville 


62.5 


2U.6 


59 'U 


23.1+ 


15.6 


31.2 








Skyline Farms 


59.1 


25.8 


h2.3 


27.6 


6.3 


19.6 


5-5 


20.5 


Klamath Falls 


35.6 


17.8 


18.6 


27.2 














Tortugas 


72.7 


38.0 


21.2 


25.7 














South Holland 


90.8 


62 .U 


6.1; 


i;8.8 


1.1 


i;B.O 


6.2 


38.3 


neighborhood of - 


















Bosque 


80.0 


31.6 


10 .0 


1.2 














Cumberland 


55.3 


18.0 


27.7 


29.5 















Wives 



Previous to settlement; 
All resettlement 



projects 


87.0 


21.6 


65.0 


30.6 


3J+,0 


28.2 


1.1+ 


12.0 


Ashv/ood 


96.8 


2h.h 


88,9 


30.5 


12,7 


27.0 








Bosque 


56.2 


2h'0 


37.5 


2l;.0 


3.1 


12.0 








Cumberland 


92,9 


22.1 


61.2 


30.1 


15.3 


23.2 








Dyess 


86.9 


19 .u 


61;.5 


31.7 


16.5 


28,3 








Penderlea 


86.3 


21.0 


72,5 


28.2 














Ropesville 


35.9 


36.5 


6l;,5 


3U.2 


29.0 


33 .1; 


3.2 


12.0 


Skyline Farms 


82.8 


22.7 


65.9 


28.8 


8.2 


39.6 


9.0 


12.0 


Klamath Falls 


65.5 


31.0 


ljl;.8 


I4O.6 


6.9 


27.0 








At time of study: 


















All resettlement 


















projects 


62.6 


23.6 


1;9.6 


27.8 


5.5 


26.6 


2.9 


21.7 


Asliwood 


87.1 


31.3 


87.1 


32.6 














Bosque 


69.0 


29 .1; 


i;5.2 


29.0 


1;.8 


12,0 








Cumber leind 


66.3 


20.1; 


Ui.s 


19.1+ 


3.8 


18 .8 








Dyess 


57.6 


23 .1; 


1;8.0 


31.2 


6.3 


31.0 


1.1+ 


38.0 


Penderlea 


66.7 


25.1 


66,7 


31.9 








29.2 


16.3 


Ropesville 


62.5 


2l;.6 


59.1+ 


23 J; 


21.9 


30.8 








Skyline Farms 


58.3 


21.2 


1;0.2 


21.1 


6,3 


19,6 


1+.7 


18.0 


Klamat}i Falls 


lt7.5 


26.2 


28.8 


3l;.6 














Tortugas 


97.0 


38.3 


33.3 


•29.14. 














South Holland 


93.4 


60 J; 


7.3 


1+8.7 


.9 


1;2.0 


11.8 


23.8 


Neighborhood of - 


















Bosque 


85.0 


3i;.6 


10.0 


1.2 














Cumberland 


66.0 


18,6 


U2.6 


30.6 


6.1+ 


36.0 









1^ Based on number of those who attended. 



- 57 - 



Table 22.- Annual participation of offspring in religious organizations, at time of study and 
previous to settleEient, 1 reclamation emd 7 resettlament projects and I4 oontrol groups 

i i t Young people's : Other religious 

t Sunday Sohool organization . organi 2at ions 

Residence jPercentagesiAverage 1^ t Percent ages t Average 1/i Percentages : Average 1^ Percentages: Average l/ 
! attending tattendancet attending lattendance; attending {attendance > attending tattendance 

Children under I5 - 

Previous to settlements 



All resettlement 



projects 


82.0 


22.1 


75.7 


3i+.4 


13.6 


33 .8 




12 J+ 


Ashwood 


9U.7 


25.3 


92.6 


35.3 


7.9 


35.2 








Bosque 


51.1 


27.5 


142.6 


28.8 














Cumber land 


73.8 


22.8 


79.2 


37.0 


13.9 


35.0 








Dyess 


86.2 


20. k 


7I4.3 


3U.7 


lU.8 


30.1 








Pender lea 


fa9.7 


2U.O 


82.1+ 


3U.0 


19.3 


36.0 








Ropesville 


90.7 


36.5 


75.9 


36.0 


31.5 


h2Ji 








Skyline Farms 


79.8 


21J+ 


68.0 


30.0 


9.7 


I42.2 


9^ 


12.1+ 


Klamath Falls 


UU,6 


2k.7 


52.7 


30.7 


6.8 


i+3.2 









At time of studyt 
All resettlement 



projects 


6^.5 


28.1 


66.3 


36.1 


8.7 


35.3 


0.7 


23.3 


Ashwood 


9U.9 


36.6 


9I+.9 


38.3 














Bosque 


75.5 


27.6 


66.0 


28 


7.5 


12.0 








Cumberland 


62 J+ 


28.8 


61.6 


37.0 


10 .U 


35.5 








Dyess 


61.0 


26.5 


66.7 


36.7 




37.2 


0.9 


31.2 


Pender lea 


60.2 


25.2 


8O.5 


39.0 


16.9 


31.2 


.8 


12.0 


Ropesville 


69.1 


18.6 


61.8 


19.8 


18.2 


30.0 








Skyline Farms 


60.2 


27.0 


52.0 


32.6 


8J+ 


36.1+ 


1.6 


12.0 


Klamath Falls 


I42.O 


27.1 




30.0 


h.9 


21.0 








Tor tu gas 


96.7 


37.0 


31.9 


29 .u 














South Holland 


60.8 


62.2 


65.1 


68.2 


k.l 


1+1^.9 


6.1 


45.5 


Neighborhood of - 


















Bosque 


75.0 


32.0 


37.0 














Cumberland 


87,2 


20 J+ 


73 J+ 


37.6 


6J+ 


i+0.0 









Children I5 or over - 
Previous to settlanentt 



All resettlement 



projects 


88.1 


21+ .1+ 


79.1 


37.3 


56.8 


57.8 


7.1 


23.2 


Ashwood 


9U.0 


26.0 


90.0 


38.9 


l4i+.0 


1+0.9 


l+.O 


12.0 


Bosque 


1+7.6 


16.3 


47.6 


21+.0 


1+.8 


12.0 








Cumberland 


91.3 


27.2 


91.3 


37.9 


1+7.8 


38.2 








Dyess 


89.7 


2i+.0 


77.9 


38.2 


1+0.0 


38.0 


2.1 


96.0 


Pender lea 


85.7 


29.5 


95.2 


37.8 


38.1 


37.6 








Ropesville 


100.0 


1+8.0 


100.0 


1+8.0 


25.0 


i+S.O 








Skyline Farms 


88.5 


18.8 


63.9 


33.2 


19.7 


32.0 


39.3 


12.0 


Klamath Falls 


83.3 


19.2 


66.7 


30.0 


33.3 


I42.O 









At time of studyt 
All resettlament 



projects 


80 .5 


30.8 


80.3 


37.2 


28.9 


39.0 


uk 


22.3 


Ashwood 


89.5 


36.5 


93.0 


39.6 














Bosque 


71+ .2 


28.2 


61+.5 


27.0 


6.5 


18.0 








Cumberland 


88.0 


53.2 


77.1 


1+3.1 


53.0 


1+0.3 








Dyess 


75.4 


28.1 


81 .5 


37 J+ 


30.6 


la .5 


.9 


1+8.0 


Penderlea 


61.9 


25.0 


66.7 


1+3.7 


66.7 


31.7 








Ropesville 


83.3 


19.2 


83.3 


19.2 














Skyline Farms 


88.7 


35 .14. 


80.6 


30.7 


17.7 


30.6 


8.1 


12.0 


Klamath Falls 


5U.2 


20.3 


66.7 


2I+.0 


1+.2 


i+8.0 








Tortugas 


95.5 


1+1.8 


27.3 


26.0 














South Holland 


88,0 


63.2 


55.3 


60 J+ 


21.0 


1+7 .6 


28.9 


1+8.7 


Neighborhood of - 


















Bosque 


100 .0 


30.2 


19.0 


2.3 














Cumberland 


7IJ+ 


20.1+ 


6U.3 


38.3 


li+.3 


3i+.o 









Based on number of those who attended . 



- 58 - 



the year previous to resettlement. 24/ For all husbands, wives, children 
15 years of age and over, and children under 15 years of age the average num- 
ber of times attended by those who actually went to preaching service during 
the year were 24, 24, 31, and 28 respectively. Corresponding figures for the 
year previous to resettlement were 21, 22, 24, and 22 respectively. When these 
averages are based upon all persons instead of those actually attending, they 
are 15, 15, 25, and 18 respectively for the project families at the time of 
study and 18, 19, 22, and 18 respectively for the families during the year 
previous to resettlement (Tables 19 and 20) . 

When the proportion of settler husbands, wives, and children who attend 
preaching service is compared with that for control .communities, it falls 
midway between South Holland with its high religiosity and Klamath Falls 
Y/ith its low participation in religious organizations. The proportion of hus- 
bands attending church preaching service on the 7 projects was 62, at South 
Holland 91, and at Klamath Falls 36 (Table 21). When all husbands are con- 
sidered, the average attendance at preaching service for settlers during one 
year on the resettlement projects was 15, for South Holland 57, and for Klamath 
Falls 6 (Table 20) . 

Sunday School Attendance 

A smaller proportion of parents attended Sunday School than attended 
church preaching service (Table 21) . However, in the case of both church preach- 
ing service and Sunday School, approximately four-fifths of the children 15 
years of age and over and two-thirds of the children under 15 years of age 
attended on the 7 resettlement projects (Table 22). Although there are ex- 
ceptions, the various members of the settlers' families did not attend Sunday 
School meetings as frequently while living on the project as they had in their 
communities of previous residence. However, these differences are not great; 
as a matter of fact they are surprisingly small considering the lack of facili- 
ties during the early stages of resettlement for which the attendance was re- 
ported. For settler children 15 years of age and over attending Sunday School, 
during the year previous to resettlement as well as on the project the average 
annual attendance was slightly under 30 (Table 19) . With the exception of 
the children at South Holland the Sunday School attendance of members of re- 
settlement families, both after and previous to resettlement, was somewhat 
greater than that of the members of families in any of the control communities. 
The annual attendance of all husbands previous to and after resettlement was 19 
and 14 respectively; that for all wives, 20 and 14; that for all children 
under 15 years of age, 26 and 24 (Tables 19 and 20) . 

Attendance at Young People's Church Organizations 

Relatively more parents and children of resettlement families attended 
church and Sunday School than attended such young people's religious organi- 
zations as the Baptist Young People's Union, Epworth League, Christian Endeavor, 



24/ In the case of Bosque Farms, Cumberland Homesteads, Dyess Colony, and 
Penderlea, some of the families had not been in residence on the project for 
1 full year at the time of the field interviews. In such instances, the 
monthly attendance for the months previous to the interview was taken for 1 
year, multiplied by 12, to represent the annual attendance. 



- 59 - 



and others of a similar nature. However, with respect to attendance of persons 
actually going to meetings, these young people's organizations were almost as 
well supported as either church or Sunday School. Of children 15 years of age 
and older, larger proportions were attending these young people's organizations 
at Cumberland Homesteads (53 percent) and Penderlea (67 percent) than in any 
other residence group (Table 22). It is thus apparent that if the young people's 
organizations as constituted at present wish to be of more service, one of their 
most important problems is that of reaching a larger proportion of the eligible 
persons in the community. 

The average number of meetings attended each year by all settler husbands 
at young people's organizations was 3.6 in the communities of residence previous 
to resettlement and 1.2 on the projects; for wives these figures were, re- 
spectively, 3.9 and 1.4; for children 15 years of age and over, 13.9 and 11.3; 
and under 15 years of age, 4.6 and 3.1 (Tables 19 and 20). In only one of the 
control communities was the parents' attendance at these young people's organi- 
zations as great as on the resettlement projects. 

Other Religious Organizations 

Besides attending church preaching services, Sunday School and young 
people's organizations, the interviewed families went to prayer meetings, re- 
vivals, special Bible classes, meetings of choral societies, and meetings of 
other church groups. When the members of settlers' families are considered, 
less than 3 percent reported attending such meetings while on the projects, and 
in the communities of previous residence only 1.4 percent of the parents and 
the children under 15 years of age attended meetings of this type (Tables 21 and 
22). Of the control communities, only South Holland with its all-encompassing 
religious program reported persons attending these miscellaneous church meetings. 



Participation in Non-Religious Organizations 
Parents 

Many studies have demonstrated that the participation of American farm 
families in non-church social organizations is not great; it is almost a 
universal rule that attendance at church and religious meetings exceeds at- 
tendance at all other meetings combined. Other studies have demonstrated 
that the more commercialized the type of agriculture, the more common various 
types of farmers' marketing cooperatives become. 25/ 

It is probable that the more rural the culture and the less commercial- 
ization and mechanization predominates in American communities, the greater 
the relative importance of the church among the social institutions. The 
families on the irrigation project at Klamath Falls, the most urbanized group 



25/ See article by Emelianoff, J. V., on "Cooperation in Agriculture," in 
Sorokin, P. A., Zimmerm.an, C. C, and Galpin, C. J., A Systematic Source 
Book in Rural Sociology, Vol. II, The University of Minnesota Press, Min- 
neapolis, 1931, pp. 169 ff. Here cooperation in the "farm" and the "peasant 
hemispheres" is compared. 



- 60 - 



SETTLEMENT AVERAGE 
NO. 

i 

6.2 



ASHWOOD 
PLANTATION 



BOSQUE FARMS 



CUMBERLAND 
HOMESTEADS 



DYESS COLONY 



PENDERLEA 
HOMESTEADS 



ROPESVILLE 
FARMS 



SKYLINE FARMS 



7 RESETTLEMENT 
PROJECTS 



KLAMATH FALLS 

TORTUGAS 

SOUTH HOLLAND -- 

NEIGHBORHOOD OF 
BOSQUE FARMS 

NEIGHBORHOOD _ 
OF CUMBERLAND 
HOMESTEADS 




AVERAGE NUMBER 
10 15 

! I I — r 



20 



8.9 



20.5 

4.6 
5.8 

7.1 
2.5 

7.9 
7.7 

1.4 
3.1 

5.3 
8.3 



I I I I 











W////////M 






W/A 








W/////////////M 


■ 

'MM 














■HI Previous to settlement 
yTTTX At time of study 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 35109 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 11.- Average numbor of meetings of non-religious organizations attended 
annually by parents, at time of study and previous to settlement^ 
1 reclamation and 7 resettlement projects and 4 control groups. 



- 61 - 



studied, reported far greater attendance at non-church organizations than did 
any of the other groups (Table 20, p. 52, and Fig. 11). The husbands and wives 
reported an annual attendance of 13 and 20 meetings respectively at non-re- 
ligious organizations. Their most frequent non-church contacts were with the 
American Legion and Auxiliary organizations; other contacts were with fraternal 
organizations, Parent-Teacher Associations, farm and cooperative organizations, 
card clubs, dance clubs, gun clubs, literary clubs, camera clubs, and the 
Union of Commercial Travelers. Next to the Klamath Falls group ranked the 
Cumberland Homesteads group, in which a large proportion of the husbands had 
been textile and mine laborers. Their participation in trade unions previous 
to, and cooperatives after, resettlement distinguishes them from the other 
groups. Over three- fourths of the husbands on the Cumberland Homesteads proj- 
ect and one-third of the wives reported participation in meetings of cooper- 
ative associations at least once a month; no families on the other 7 projects 
reported such a large proportion of parents in attendance at the time of the 
study (Tables 23 and 24). In general, attendance of parents of settler families 
on the projects at non-church meetings was not great although it exceeded all 
control groups except Klamath Falls. For husbands the annual average number of 
non-church meetings attended was 4 previous to, and 5 after, resettlement; for 
the wives, such attendance averaged 7 and 11 respectively (Table 20) . 

A smaller proportion of parents of families on the 7 projects reported 
attending meetings of fraternal organizations 26/ and Parent-Teacher Associations 
for the period studied after resettlement than for the period studied previous 
to resettlement. However, few families contacted either of these organizations. 

Almost a third of all women in the settlers' families on the 7 projects 
reported attendance at Home Demonstration Clubs (Table 24) . In comparing 
the figures before and after resettlement in this respect, it was found that 
the percentage was greater for the latter period in the case of Ashwood Plan- 
tation (respectively, 40 and 63 percent), Bosque Farms (13 and 38 percent), 
Dyess Colony (38 and 46 percent), Penderlea (33 and 44 percent), and Ropesville 
(42 and 75 percent). Almost 90 percent of the wives at Cumberland Homesteads 
attended women's club meetings (which for this project took the place of Home 
Demonstration Clubs) an average of 2 times per month. For the period of the 
study no other settler group reported attendance at women's clubs on the proj- 
ect . 

Young People 

Recent studies of rural youth have indicated a manimum of participation 
in non-church organizations. Most of these studies also represent the American 
rural young people as anxious for the opportunity to take part in various social 
endeavors. 27/ The groups included in the present study cannot be taken as 



26/ Exclusive of the Grange, attendance at which has been combined with 
Farm Bureau. 

27/ Joy, Barnard D., et al . , Situations, Problems, Interests of Unmarried Rural 
Young People 16-25 Years of Age, Extension Circular Nos. 239, 417, 269, 277, 
282, and 293, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C; Melvin, Bruce 
L. and Smith, Elna N. , Rural Youth: Their Situations and Prospects, Research 
Monograph XV, Works Progress Administration, Washington, D. C, 1938; and Sell, 
Howard M., Youth Tell Their Story, American Youth Commission, Washington, D.C., 
1938. 



- 62 - 



§ Hi <D 
■rl 



10 

O .H 

■rt 

1^ 



0) 

o 
u 



o 

M S 
aj Tl 



u 

ID bp 

M a 

1 

2ii 
£ °* 

SI 

P ID 
03 

(4 

IB U) 



p o 

a! -H 

ID +> 

EH d 
o 

O 

O in 



u a 

p ID 

> +> 

«s! -P 



•t •* 

ca 
O 



•■ s 

I I 

ID a 
^1 
I * 

00 

w 

ID 
hO 
Oi 

^ . 

ID e 
o +> 



1 



rH |0 

ID 

to 



C>- O t- O O CM 

• •o«»«oo» 

W rH ITS H H C\J 



o\oo oo o -4 
• •©•••oo* 

i-4_:t -Cfr-I CJ OJ 

C\J 



KS ^ ^ O ^ ^ O 
•OO •© 'OO • 



H OO O l>- 

•OO 'OO • 



O O O O vO 

• •o»oo»o» 



sO ON CO 

• » a •oo'O • 

O H H 5h* 



cj^ot^woooo 



■>0<NJCNJC0C^t~-IMOCVJ 
• •••••••• 

^f^ r^vO i<S C\J rr\ ^(^ rH 



ITi O .^00 O CO 

rH rH OJ iH rH rH OJ 



O O OS H CM sO 

• O • • 'OO • 'O • 

ITS CO \Q hTNOO CO 

CJ -=r rJSCVl rH rH H 



CO rH ON O 

• o« ••oo»*o» 

00 CM rH Lr\ OO ITS CVJ 

rH rH 



,00 iOOOO 'O _ 



CM rH On 



O O © -d- 

^©©©©©^©j^©^ 



• D©0©© •© •©^* 
O res g C- 



©©©o ^oo^co 

• •••©©©••o* 



H ^<^_:f rH 



rH hf\CVJ rH 



• O © © 



C^ rH O 

• • o • 



OJ 




OJ 


OJ 


■-0 


OJ 


<D 




• 




« 




• o 






• o 


Q 


LA 


o 






CO 


On 




rH 


rH 


CVJ 




rH 




rH 





LTi O OJ -a'^ ^ 

• OO • • O O • 'O • 

o -4^ -4-4 ON 

OJ Ol CVJ ri H rH 



-4 CVJ 




■P 



.n 
■p 

•p 



© © 



© © 



© © 



© © 



© o 




- 63 - 



C +> 



as 

n -p 

, <D +> 

0) "in" 



> +> 
<i a! 



bO I 

oj a 

w 



43 ID 



J) 43 
> 4> 

< d ' 



d 

-P (D 

H 43 

o 43 

o d 



tl 43 

<D 4J 

o d 



10 ;J 

d a 

43 o 

C +3 

O 4> 

o d 



d -H 
© +> 
d 



bC 
bO-g 

d "* 



<D 4> 
t> 4J - 

d 



00 to, o o 
• •o**»oo 

rH oj eg (M 



-b-^ ONCVJ O 
< • o • • • ' 



o 

(M 



o 00 

• 00 • 'OOO 



•00 • 'OOO 

o 



(D <D i 



t> U U 

3 (D (0 (D 

a* ^ w 13 



V r— 1 

It 



o 



00 • o o o o 



o o 00 

;ooooo«o • 

W rH 



CO O O CO o o 

• •••••00 

tOi OJ CO t- f~vO 

CVJ r-) r-l (M OJ fH 



vO On LI^ J- O\C0 -3- 
• •••••00 • 

lA t~- O rc» <H 



K\_d- O O CVJ O \0 O 

^<^^<^Ll^OJ ro\cuso o 

i-li-li-li-lrHrHrHOJ 



t— ir» lA J' ^f^ On Lr\ 
• • • • # • • • o 

mONCvi ir\co rcirH OJ 

OJ rA r-i K\K>_d- 



t~ o o in J- o -d- o cvj 

• ••••••• • 

IO>OJ OJ lArCi OJ-d-co tc» 

<H<-li-1r4i-(iHr-IrH rH 



d r-1 fc, rH 



3 



O 000 O OJ rr> 

•©•••oo» •O* 



J- J^rH O 00 -J 

•o*»»oo« •o* 

rH OJ rH i-l J- CO \0 

CVJ 



t~- o 

•oo'oooo 000 o» 

<M CJ OJ 

r-l rH 



CO vO rH 

•oo'oooo 000 o» 

t~ CO OJ 



00 vO 

• •000000 "OO 



rH\0 ON 

••000000 'OO 

O rH vO 



• 00 'OOOO 



t-- CO 
rH* rH 



•00 'OOOO "O 



WOOOOOO O 

• ••••••o oo* 

J-CVJ OJnQ-S OJ p OJ 

H rH r-1 |3S rH rH W rH 



CVJ On rH rH O CO O 
• ••••••( 

CVJ Ol CO rHNO KNIA 



I o 00 



NO o o OJ 00 o 

• •••ooo» •o* 

KNCVIOJJ ir> hTN K\ 

rH rH rH H r4 rH rH 



00 O rCiO O O O 

• •••000» •O* 

NO pN^<^NO iTi CVJ o 

SJ to rH OJ CJ 



00000000 



00000000 



d (Q 

rH rH 

4> O <D (h tH 

O p 3 CO (D 

0) fc ^ eo 

•o£ o g © c 

O B o 3 >> o 

(4 <; cq U C) Oi 

04 



o o 
• o • 

OD nO 



CJ CO 



d W 
o o 

an 00 



in 
o • 

CO 



o 

• o 



O 0) L< 

^ 3 <D 

bO B s 

•H o 3 



1^ 



- 64 - 



exceptions to the rule that foriral non-church social participation of rural 
young people is relatively insignificant. With the exception of 4-H Club at- 
tendance, only 2 percent of the children under 15 years of age and 9 percent 
of the children 15 years of age and over attended any non-church organization 
during the period of the study on the 7 projects. For the year previous to 
resettlement none of the children under 15 years of age and only 2 percent of 
the children 15 and over had attended nieetings of such organizations. The pro- 
portion of children in the Indian-Mexican village attending such meetings was 
greater than for any of the control groups. Here the proportion of children 
under 15, and 15 years of age and over, attending such meetings (8 and 14 per- 
cent respectively) was greater than for all families on the 7 resettlement proj- 
ects (2 and 9 percent respectively) and for South Holland (4 and 8 percent re- 
spectively) . In tcth Tortugas and South Holland, as well as on the resettle- 
ment projects, these meetings were primarily those of the Boy Scouts, al- 
though in the Indian-Mexican village the annual tribal dance festivities 28/ 
and at South Holland various school organizations had an important place. 

The only projects that had well supported 4-H Clubs at the time of 
study were Ashwood Plantation, Cumberland Homesteads, and Dyess Colony. For 
both the year previous to settlement and the period studied after resettle- 
ment on these three projects, approximately one-third of the children 10 to 20 
years of age were in attendance, averaging from 1 to 3 meetings per month. 
The Dyess Colony 4-K Club is one of the largest in the country. Settler fami- 
lies on the other 4 projects did not report an appreciable number in attendance 
at 4-H Clubs during either period of residence. At several of the projects, 
social organizations and clubs bearing various titles (such as the Pioneer Club 
at Dyess) had been formed. At Cumberland Homesteads the young people's church 
organizations had activities extending into such functions as those which else- 
where might have been classified as non-church organizations. 



Availability of Social A gencies 

Although studies of the various social agencies themselves reveal the 
number of meetings held monthly by each, the interviev/ed families were asked 
to give this information. It was assumed that averages weighted by the number 
of families who knew about the programs of these organizations would present a 
truer picture of availability. Thus, the averages given in Table 25 are based 
solely upon family interviews. Furthermore, the difficulty of defining avail- 
ability resulted in the more feasible plan of leaving the decision of this mat- 
ter largely to the individual families rather than to the interviewers v^ho 
had originally been asked to follow definite instructions and criteria. 29/ 



28/ Locmis and Leonard, op. cit. 

29/ In determining availability, the families interviewed considered such 
factors as distance to the meeting place of the institution, transportation, 
denomination, and so forth. A Methodist family, when asked whether a church 
was available, might ansv/er "no" if there were no Methodist churches within a 
reasonable distance even though a church of another denomination, say Pente- 
costal Holiness Church, might have existed in the neighborhood. Some, however, 
answered "yes." Affirmative replies of this type were taken to indicate that 
the interviewed person considered that he might under certain circumstances 
attend the church even if it were of a different denomination than the one to 
which he customarily belonged. 



- 65 - 



I 

u m 

a, t> 

O -H 
O +> 

o as 
bOi 

g g § 



o 

O .H 

OS P 
O 
E-t M 
CO 

<5 



I oJ 

t g 

•p 



CO 

o 

CO iH 
- +5 

hO O oS 

3 Oi-H 

port 

O 

^rH 

qS O 
T3 O 
PI 

O 

CO CO 
«• •• 

o 




o 
PI 

t:) 

•H 

CO 

« 



O iH O O 

• oo»o«oo • 



On r-< CD O Ka ON 

••o***o* • 

rH r-l t0.r-i r-t OJ iH 



ro» o o o o in 
••o* ••• • 

iHrH iHOCVIrHrH iH 



O CVJ CO hTA KMTv 
• •••••OO 

C\J iH iH OJ OJ rH 



N>CJ0JrC>KNOOrH 
rH rHfHiHiHrHOJrH 



kaonO ir\rc\rHKMr\ 

iH rHiH«HiHfHi-l»H 



00 ITS KMXNnO -d- 
• • • O * 



• O 



CVJ 



ONQNOCTNOt^OON 
c ••••••• 

rfN KN_j- KN_j- rck 



• ••••••• 

^OoC>lf^O^^<^oo^<^ 

• ••••••• 

CM CM hr\ OJ CVJ rOk_j- OJ 



C3N 



CU CVJ o o o 

•00«Oo30 • o» o» 

rH rH fH CVJ rH 



CJNI-I O CO O 

• •o»*oo» • o* 

CVS iH hTNCVI _:J iH rA 



o o o in o 

••OOOO'O • o» 



o nO 
• oo»o»oo • 

CVJ OJ fH rH 



mo o o LfMH o o 
• ••••••• 

iHrHrH_j-iHrHCVJ_Ct 



r-Or-iiHmoot^ m 

• ••••••• • 

iHiHrHiHrHiHiHCVJ fH 



-d- CJN-d- m J- 
«00 ••OO • • 

CVJ CVJ rc\ iH iH 



0\0 O O O t«-cONO 00 
• ••••••• • 



OnOOOOOOvO 
• ••••••• 

tn 



KN 



moo o o <H t— cjnno o 
• ••••••• • 

KN K\ m m m tn -j- 




Cj iH fa 
© iH 
rH iH ^ 

©Si u > a 

P5 CO (0 •H 
(J* ^ CO -d © rH 

« Ph « CO 



O 



NO 



CM 



CVJ 



• • 

CVJ m 

O K\ 

• • 



CO 
at 

i 

o 

Eh 



m 

CVJ 



o o 



CVJ 



f-lliH 



rH iH 



OJ 



o o 

• • 



00 (;\ 
• • 

KN 



m OJ 



CO 




- 66 



The following conclusions are supported by the data presented in Table 
25: (1) There are no significant differences between the number of meetings 
reported as available to families previous to and following settlement on the 
projects; (2) The Sunday School classes and church preaching services avail- 
able at South Holland were far more numerous than for any of the other groups; 
(3) Families in the neighborhood of Bosque Farm^s and those at Tortugas reported 
few available meetings other than those of the churches. 

Distances Traveled to Meetings 

One of the arguments in favor of the agricultural village as compared 
with the isolated homestead runs as follows: when peasants and farmers live 
together in the village, social life among families can be more intense and 
social and economic facilities more accessible. 30/ In some sparsely settled 
areas distances between hom.es actually prohibit the establishment of well-inte- 
grated communities for families living on ranches and farms. Do people living 
on the resettlement projects travel shorter distances to attend their social 
and economic meetings than they traveled previously? For projects in the Great 
Plains the answer is "yes." Families at Bosque Farms reported traveling as 
far as 35 miles to meetings previous to resettlement in contrast to a maximum 
average of 1.5 miles reported after establishing residence on the project. 
But, in general, settlers living on all the projects except Bosque Farms and 
FiOpesville - both in the Great Plains area - went somev/hat similar distances 
to social gatherings of all types for both periods (Tables 26 and 27) . 

For Bosque the average distance traveled by families attending all 
meetings previous to resettlement was approximately 8 miles, as compared with 
approximately 1 mile after resettlement. Ropesville families traveled, 
on xhe average, 4.4 miles to church meetings previous to, and 4.0 miles after, 
resettlement. For the 7 projects combined these figures were 2.0 and 1.8 
respectively. To attend meetings of non-church organizations Ropesville fami- 
lies traveled an average of 2.4 miles previous to resettlement and 1.0 mile at 
the time of study. For the 7 projects these figures were 2.4 and 2.0 re- 
spectively. 

Leadership 

If the resettlement projects are to accomplish their objectives, leaders 
from among the settlers themselves must eventually man the posts of control in 
the social and economic agencies which serve them. Vifhen Government officials 
move away from the project, responsible direction must be drawn from the set- 
tlers. Consequently, in resettlement on a community basis, few problems are 



30/ Loomiis, Charles P., The Modern Settlement Movement in Germany, Rural and 
Suburban, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, February 1935, 
p. 20; See Aereboe, F. , Allegemeine landwirtschaftliche Betriebslehre, (Sechste 
Auflage) Berlin, Paul Parey, 1923, and a longer discussion of the settlement by 
Aereboe in Agrarpolitik (Ein Lehrbuch), Berlin, Paul Parey, 1928, ch. VII, 
pp. 570 ff. 



- 67 - 



Table 26.- Average distances to meeting places of religious organizations 
attended by families, at time of study and previous to resettle- 
ment, 1 reclamation and 7 resettlement projects and 4 

control groups 





: Average 


distance to meeting place of - 


Residence 




: : Young people's 




: Total : 


Church : Sunday School: organization 



Previous to settlement: 



7 resettlement 

projects 2.0 

Ashwood 2 . 1 

Bosque 7.7 

Cumberland 1.2 

Dyess 2.0 

Penderlea 1.7 

Ropesville 4.4 

Skyline Farms 1.4 

Klamath Falls 3.6 



2.1 2.0 1.9 

2.2 2.0 2.1 

7.0 7.1 13.4 
1.4 1.3 .8 

2.1 1.9 2.0 
1.8 1.5 1.9 

4.3 5.1 3.6 

1.4 1.4 1.3 

3.4 3.7 3.8 



At time of study: 



7 resettlement 

projects 1.8 

Ashwood 2.7 

Bosque 1.1 

Cumberland 2.6 

Dyess 1.4 

Penderlea 1.5 

Ropesville 4.0 

Skyline Farms - 1.6 

Klamath Falls 5.0 

South Holland 1.3 

Tortugas .1 
Neighborhood of - 

Bosque 2.5 

Cumberland 1.6 



1.8 1.8 1.9 

2.6 2.6 4.1 
1.4 1.0 .9 

2.7 2.6 2.6 

1.3 1.2 1.6 
1.7 1.6 1.2 

4.4 4.3 2.7 

1.7 1.6 1.5 

4.8 4.8 6.0 
1.3 1.2 1.2 

.1 .1 - 1/ 

2.1 3.3 1.0 

1.7 1.6 1.7 



1/ No organization reported. 



- 68 - 









^4 








© 
















O 






•* 


•* 








a 








o 

•ri 








•P 


of 






^ 
•ri 








O 








O 








(0 


•ri 






(0 


+5 








(0 








-P 






© 


ai 3 








O 






g 


- ti 






cj 


to tD 






U 











•■^ 




•* 




rH O 






3 


•H 






St 


§ -P 






© 


CO d 

<iH 8 




CD 




o 


1 














XI J- 




1 






o 




CO 




© 


© 


(D a 


© 


ft 


> 


Xj oj 

s 


o 


o 


•ri 


a! 


o 


-P 


V CO 


rH 


o 


Oi 


•p -p 


P 






■P o 








ai a 


^( 




i 


•o 




tc 




w o 


•H 

-p 




a U 




o d, 


© 






•H 


S 






-B 

OS a 






© 


N (!) 


o 






•d i 


-p 




■p 

o 


ai rH 


© 








o 






-P 


S 


CO 


O 


o ® 


ai 


x> 


•ri 


w 




3 


•P 


CO ® 


CO 


rH 


ai 


3 ^^ 


•ri 


O 


Sh 


o 


X) 




-P 


•H 




CO 


to 


«^ _ 








•ri XI 




i 


o 


rH S 


a 




S 


(D d 


u 








© 














a o 






© 


O •H 








C! -P 






o 


M 






W 


Ch a 








o 3 




rH 




rH 








CO O 




a 




© © 






© 






© 


XI 


si 






u 


rH rH 






o 


&i 
































•ri © 




© 




•p e 






ri 


© © 




o 


o 


© rH 






•ri 


fi +> 




© 


•P 






EH 


Si 


o © 




1 


•ri 


4J CO 




•p 


O 


© 






O 






g 


CO 


© 






to 


o o 
























+> CO 








10 3 






rH 


•ri O 






Ol 


XI 






-P 








o 


© © 






EH 










ISi 








Si 








© X) 
































• Xt 

C— 3 




© 




Table 2 
• St 




o 

a 
© 

xi 

•ri 

CO 

© 





© 

§ 

rH 

-P 
-P 
© 



o 
■p 

to 
3 

o 

•ri 

© 



I I • 



CVJ o 

• I I •• I I I 



• ••••••• 

OJOJCOi-ICVJCVICVJOJ 



© 



rH CO "d 

•p -p o 

-POO 
© © 
CO £ 

© O CO 

p< 



XI 



© ai 

rH pL< 
rH 

•ri © 

^ © en © CO .9 

CO X3 © rH 

OJ a © C ft >, 
O 3 >> © O 

oa o o ffi « CO 



© h 
3 



00 in tOi o w o o 
cvj rH CD trsro\ -J- 



o ino t^QO CO c>- 

• •••••II • 

lALIMnOJ -J- sO 

lA ' O O 

• I I • I • I I • 

rH rH CVI ON 



CVJ o^^<^ rH t>- 

••gi*«|^ • 

CVJ (M CVJ CVJ CVI CVJ 



LTN-:!- in t— ON CVJ n> kn 

• •••••!• • 

rH CVI rH rH CVJ lA 



_d-co r-vo LTNco OS 

• ••••••• 

rH rH in rH rH rH rH 



o -d" inino o 
• • I • • • I • 

10, J- rH N% rn tOi 



in 



m CAvo r-_d- o rH \o c— 
• • • • • • • • • 

cvjrHcvj cvicvjrnrH rn 



J- 



^<^ nO J- t- 

' ' • -.t ' « • • 

CVJ CVI rH CVJ 



I I I I I I I 



CVJ 



•■1111*1 

CVI m 



CVJ 



OnO on 
••II "III 

CVI KN CVJ 



• I I • I I 

CVJ CVJ 



-4 -:t o 
♦ I I • I • I 



rH C?\ ON_d- rH \0 in O 
• ••••••• 

rH rH rH rH 



CVI O 
• • 

^<^sO 



o in ,0 
• • I I • 

rn t<N cvi 



KN t>- CVI 00 rCN 

• • I I • I I • • 

CM CVI CVI KN 



CVI 
KN 



ON ON O CVJ CO KN^O t- 
• ••••••• • 

rH CVJ rH CVJ KN KN KN rH CVJ 



OKNONOrHf-Ot~- ON 
• ••••••• • 

CVJCVJ CVJCVJrHirirH CVJ 




11 II 



CVJ 



in o 



03 

00 



CO 



CVI 



I • 



O rH 



1-^ 



in o 



00 o 




















X) 












XI 




1 







1 











rH 






rH 





10 


u 


© u 


w 


oi 





3 © 




faO 


Xi 








s: 


CO a 


-p 




bl) 


3 


3 




•ri 







b 


© 




CO 


Eh 


3 





XI 

o 
■P 

h 
O 
ft 
© 

u 

•p 
o 
ri 



ri 
o 

•ri 



to 
u 
o 

© 
o 

•ri 

xt 
ri 

•ri 

m 

V) 



x> 
ai 
-P 



:d 
-p 



- 69 - 



more important than the development of, or selection of, leaders. 31/ 
Unfortunately, at the time of the field work for this study the project organi- 
zations were too immature to warrant an adequate appraisal of leadership. 

The proportions of the populations in the various groups which held 
offices, served on committees, or were recognized as officers in any of the 
organizations varied greatly (Tables 28 and 29) . Among the different groups 
none, with the exception of Klairath Falls, was so outstanding in proportion of 
parents holding office as Penderlea and Cumberland Homesteads. During the year 
previous to resettlement 22 percent of the parents held office; during the per- 
iod of study while they were living on the project, the percentages of husbands 
and wives holding office were 8 and 19, respectively. It should be mentioned 
that one of the more important considerations in selecting candidates for 
resettlement at Penderlea was dem.onstrated capacity for leadership, a fact 
which may explain the relatively large number of leaders there. For all of the 
projects larger proportions of the wives than of the husbands were leaders, 
11 percent of the former as compared with 4 percent of the latter holding of- 
fice; for the year previous to resettlement these percentages were 8 and 7, 
respectively (Fig. 12). The organizations in which the wives most frequently 
served as officers were Home Demonstration and other women's clubs. 

Klairath Falls with its large number of special-interest groups outranked 
all others in the proportion of persons holding office. In South Holland and 
Tortugas, where social participation was predominantly in church organizations, 
smaller percentages of residents held office than was the case for the settlers 
during the year before their move to the various projects = 

Will a person who is a leader in one community tend to be a leader in 
the community to which he migrates? In the present study 57, or 35 percent, 
of the 163 members of settler families holding office during the last year of 
residence in the community were holding office on the projects to which they had 
migrated when the study was made. Although no information is available for 
the ordinary annual turnover in officers for these groups, it is obvious that 
persons who are leaders in'the one community much more frequently become leaders 
in the new community than do non-leaders. Although new leaders probably will 
make their appearance, more of the persons who have already taken leading parts 
in their old environment will tend to be elected to office as the project 
agencies become more established. One of the most interesting processes 
observed by the writer was the effort on the part of the persons who had been 
leaders in their old communities of residence to attain leadership status in 
the agencies of the new communities. Undoubtedly resettlement officials 
should make certain that among their settlers there are some persons who have 
previously assumed the roles of leaders. 



31/ Holt, John B., An Analysis of Methods and Criteria Used in Selecting 
Families for Colonization Projects, Social Research Report No. 1, U. S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, Washington, D. C, September 1937. 



- 70 - 



Table 28.- Percentages of husbands and v/ives holding office in formal community 
organizations for specified periods of time, 1 reclamation and 7 re- 
settlement projects and 2 control groups 



Residence 



Per cen t ages ho ldin g; _ of fic 



Previous to: At time : Previous to settlement who also 
settlement : of study: held office at time of study 



Husbands; 



All resettlement 
proj ects 
Ashwood 
Bosque 
Cumberland 
Dyess 
Penderlea 
Ropesville ^ 
Skyline Farms 



6.76 
6.35 
3.13 
7.10 
6.90 
21.57 
3.23 
1.64 



3.95 
1.59 
4.76 
7.07 
3.61 
8.16 


.79 



28.3 



23.1 
32.1 
36.4 



50.0 



Klamath Falls 
Tortugas 
South Holland 



15.52 

1/ 
1/ 



11.86 
3.03 
6.55 



33.3 
1/ 
1/ 



Wives : 



All resettlement 
proj ects 
Ashwood 
Bosque 
Cumberland 
Dyess 
Penderlea 
Ropesville 
Skyline Farms 



8.00 
11.11 


3.28 
11.08 
21.57 

3.23 
.82 



10.87 
14.29 


7.07 
16.14 
18.75 



.79 



4.2 
14.3 


16.7 
53.3 
36.4 







Klamath Falls 
Tortugas 
South Holland 



5.17 
1/ 
1/ 



11.86 


4.08 





1/ 
1/ 



1/ Does not apply. 



-71- 



Table 29.- Percentages of offspring holding office in formal community organ- 
izations for specified periods of time, 1 reclamation and 7 resettle- 
ment projects and 2 control groups 



: Percen tages hold ing _off ice - 

Residence : Previous to: At time : Previous to settlement who also 

: settlement : of study: held office at time of study 



Children under 15: 








All resettlement 








proj ects 


0.31 


0.48 


57.1 


Ashwood 











Bosque 





1.89 





Cumberland 











Dyess 


.38 ■ 


.85 


75.0 


Penderlea 


2.52 


.85 


33.3 


Ropesville 











Skyline Farms 











Klamath Falls 


2.70 


2 .47 


50 .0 


Tortugas 


1/ 





1/ 


South Holland 


1/ 


.61 


1/ 


Children 15 or over: 








All resettlement 








proj ects 


5.94 


5.35 


24.0 


Ashwood 


14.00 


3.92 


14.3 


Bosque 











Cumberland 


4.35 


2.41 





Dyess 


6.67 


8.19 


38.5 


Penderlea 


9.52 


14.29 





Ropesville 











Skyline Farms 











Klamath Falls 


16.67 


4.17 





Tortugas 


1/ 





1/ 


South Holland 


1/ 


2.50 


1/ 



1/ Does not apply. 



- 72 - 



7 RESETTLEMENT 
PROJECTS 



HUSBANDS 




WIVES 



CHILDREN 
UNDER 15 



CHILDREN 
15 OR OVER 

KLAMATH FALLS 
HUSBANDS 



WIVES 



CHILDREN ^2.70| 
UNDER 15 z 



CHILDREN 
15 OR OVER 



TORTUGAS * 

HUSBANDS 



^3 03^ 



SOUTH HOLLAND 
HUSBANDS 

WIVES 



CHILDREN 
UNDER 15 

CHILDREN 
15 OR OVER 



6.55 



4.08 



0.61 



Previous to settlement 
At time of study 



* ONLY HUSBANDS HELD OFFICE 
;U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG 35144 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 

Figure 12.- Percentages holding office in formal community organizations, 

AT time of study AND PREVIOUS TO SETTLEMENT, 1 RECLAMATION AND 
7 RESETTLEMENT PROJECTS AND 2 CONTROL GROUPS. 



-73- 



Summary 

(1) Although the attendance of the families on the 7 resettlement 
projects at church meetings at the time of the study was less than that of the 
same families previous to resettlement, it was relatively high considering the 
lack of facilities during early project development. 

(2) Attendance at non-church meetings was greater at the time of study 
on the 7 projects than it had been for the same families previous to resettle- 
ment. This is accounted for in part by the cooperative, educational, and 
other non-religious groupings sponsored by the resettling agencies. 

(3) Families living on the 5 resettlement projects not located in the 
Great Plains traveled about the same distance to organization meetings at the 
time of study as they did previous to settlement. But for Bosque and Ropes- 
ville families resettlement resulted in considerable reduction in the distances 
traveled to meetings. 

(4) Individuals who were leaders in their communities previous to re- 
settlement were more likely to become leaders on the resettlement projects than 
those who were not leaders in their old communities. 



- 74 - 



Appendix 
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE 



Table 30.- Total number of associating families reported by interviewed 
families, at time of study and previous to settlement, 1 reclamation 
and 7 resettlement projects and 4 control groups 1/ 



Associations 



Residence ; Visit : Exchange work : Borrow : None 2/ 



Previous to settlement; 












7 resettlement projects 


3, 284 




709 


990 




Ashv/ood 


279 




37 


55 




Bosque 


138 




38 


39 




Cumberland 


548 




85 


99 




Dvess 


1 , 463 




395 


583 




Penderlea 


239 




65 


116 




Ropesville 


109 




36 


42 




Skyline Farms 


508 




53 


55 




Klamath Falls 


88 




26 


15 




At time of study; 












7 resettlement projects 


3,525 




1 , 151 


1 , 602 


3,898 


Ashwood 


2S2 




125 


93 


309 


Bosoue 


134 




13 


12 


220 


Cumberland 


619 




90 


153 


866 


uyess 






'JAP, 


1 , V 1 X 


X , 00<J 


Penderlea 


234 




84 


142 


245 


Ropesville 


122 




53 


57 


155 


Skyline Farms 


522 




40 


74 


553 


Klamath Falls 


147 




40 


48 


166 


Tortugas 


102 




7 


7 


151 


South Holland 


1,796 




45 


35 


1.609 


Neighborhood of - 












Bosque 


61 




5 


10 


102 


Cumberland 


158 




27 


29 


176 


1/ As indicated by footnotes on all 


text 


tables based on 


these fi 


gures, data 


were not available for all 


associating 


families. The form 


of the schedule pre- 


eluded any one family's reporting more 


than 


5 associations 


fer each 


type speci- 


fied. 












2/ Do not visit, exchange 


work, or borrow 


although living 


close together. 



- 75 - 



DISCUSSION OF THE TERM "COMMUNITY 



In this report the author has in mind no rigid definition of a community. 
Regardless of the point of reference from which one may view community, it is 
a relative concept. Elsewhere possible frames of reference have been dis- 
cussed. 32 / 

Suffice it to say that so far as the author is concerned the "ideal" 
community is composed of families that live together and share life's experi- 
ences. One might say that the more completely and intensively people in a 
given group live together, the more nearly the group would approach the "ideal" 
community. The community integrates two phenomena which are often thought of 
as being opposed. These are (1) the division of labor and the round-about 
method of production which inevitably lead to secondary contacts and (2) the 
familiarity in face-to-face living together. Ideally, the community would con- 
sist of a large enough group of individuals with their families and insti- 
tutions to be relatively self-sufficient but small enough, homogeneous enough, 
and well enough integrated that each is cognizant of the problems and abilities 
of all others and the weal and woe of each person is the weal and woe of the 
community. Few such communities exist. 

Zimmerman 53/ has indicated other characteristics with regard to which 
communities may fall between two possible extremes. Most of the action and be- 
havior might be conscious or it might be unconscious, or lie "below the level 
of awareness." Again, among the people the "wish for security" or the "residue 
of persistent aggregates" may predominate, in which case the community is en- 
tirely different than when the people are obsessed with the "wish for new ex- 
perience" and the "residue of combinations." There is the possibility that the 
people will be highly rationalized, using logical "means" to attain desired 
individual "ends." A society in which such rationalization or secularization 
prevails will differ greatly from one in which one's acts are governed m.ore by 
non-intellectual, non-logical motives or circumstances. Localism may predomi- 
nate in one community whereas in another cosmopolitanism may be the rule. Mean- 
ingful descriptions of communities will always bear some reference to such 
dichotomies . 

Thus it is apparent that "community" is a relative term. It is relative 
with respect to the number and the type of bonds and interests which relate its 
members one to another. It is relative with respect to the intensity of bonds 
required by a group in order that it may be called a community. For instance, 
kinship is a powerful integrating bond in group life, but it is impossible to 
say that it must alwa.ys be or to what degree and extent it must be present. 
Geographical proximity is important and distance must be considered in the de- 
scription of communities, but there are instances when a loved one on the other 
side of the world comes nearer being in the same community with one than does 
his next-door neighbor. Friendship is necessary for community integration, but 



32/ Loomis, C. P., The Development of Planned Rural Communities, op. cit. 
33/ Zimmerman, Carle C, The Changing Community, op. cit. 



- 76 - 



few communities have individuals who are not at odds with one another. It is 
impossible to set a limit on the number of such antagonistic relationships that 
may disqualify a group from being a community. 

Community thus becomes a concept which may mean different things to dif- 
ferent people. In this study it is thought of as a localized group larger than 
an American family, with a maximum of self-sufficiency, economically and so- 
cially, as well as a maximum of fellow feeling on the part of the members who 
share one another's experiences and interests. As Sanderson writes, the rural 
community is the smallest geographical unit of organized association of the 
chief human activities. 54/ 



34/ Sanderson, Dwight, Locating the Rural Community, Cornell Extension Bulletin 
413, College of Agriculture, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, June 1939. 



- 77 - 



COMPARISON OF OBSERVED VISITING ASSOCIATIONS WITH THOSE 
EXPECTED FROM CHANCE GROUPINGS, BOSQUE FARMS 



As a method of determining whether or not the three groups at Bosque 
Farms were in-groups, observed frequencies of visiting were compared with 
frequencies which might be expected under certain conditions approaching a 
situation in which only chance might determine associations. Table 31 and 
Figure 13, which present the actual observed visiting relationships, are to be 
compared with Tables 32, 33, and 34, which present the frequencies which would 
be expected under different conditions of random relationships or choices. 



Table 31.- Classification of actual visiting relationships among three 
groups on a resettlement project, Bosque Farms, January 1937 



Visited families 




Visitins 


families 




: Total 


: Bosque 


: Taos ; 


; Mills 


Total 


112 


6 


73 


33 


Bosque 


7 


5 


1 


1 


Taos 


65 





54 


11 


Mills 

• 


40 


1 


18 


21 



In Table 32 the frequencies expected are those which would result from random 
choice, assuming that for any given visiting family the probability of visiting 
a family in any specified group is proportional to the number of families in 
that group (excluding the family that is visiting from the group to which it 
belongs). Comparison of Table 31 and Table 32 leads to the conclusion that all 
three groups were still in-groups at the time of the study, provided the as- 
3um.ptions for the frequencies in Table 32 are correct. However, the average 
Valencia County family was chosen or visited 1.16 times, the average Taos 
County family 2.95 times, and the average Harding County family 3.33 times. 
This may have been due to differences in popularity, accessibility, or other 
factors. Table 33 presents frequencies assuming differences in availability 
for contacts. Thus the measures of availability for contacts for the Valencia 
County families used in this table are 7/6, for Taos County families 65/22, 
and for Harding County families 40/12. This, however, does not take into ac- 
count the fact that in any group the visiting family cannot visit itself. If 
Tables 31 and 33 are compared, the differences between the observed and the 
expected frequencies are great enough to indicate that the Valencia County and 
Harding County families were still in-groups. However, for Taos County these 
differences are not great enough to have not resulted from chance as indicated 
by the Chi Square Test. 



- 78 - 



Table 32.- Classification of expected relationships, assuming that for any 
given visiting family the probability of visiting a family in any 
specified group is proportional to the number of families in 
that group (excluding the family visiting from the group 
to which it belongs), Bosque Farms, January 1937 



Visited families 




Visiting 


families 




: Total 


Bosque 


Taos : 


Mills 


Total 


112.01 


6.00 


73.00 


33.01 


Bosque 


17.08 


.77 


11.23 


5.08 


Taos 


61.31 


3.38 


39.31 


18.62 


Mills 


33.62 


1.85 


22.46 


9.31 



Table 33.- Classification of expected relationships, assuming that for any 
given visiting family (of any of the three groups) the probability 
of visiting families in each of the three groups will be pro- 
portional to 7:65:40, the actual frequencies of visiting 
observed, Bosque Farms, January 1937 



Visi ting families 



Visited families : Total : Bosque : Taos :' Mills 



Total 


112. 


00 


6. 


00 


73. 


00 


33. 


00 


Bosque 


7 


00 




38 


4 


56 


2 


.06 


Taos 


65 


00 


3 


48 


42 


37 


19 


15 


Mills 


40 


00 


2 


.14 


26 


07 


11 


79 



Table 34.- Classification of expected relationships, assuming that for any 
given visiting family (of any of the three groups) the probability 
of visiting families in each of the three groups will be pro- 
portional to 7:65:40, the actual frequencies of visiting 
observed (excluding the family visiting from the group 
to which it belongs), Bosque Farms, January 1937 



Visiting families 



Visited families 


: Total : 


Bosque 


Taos : 


Mills 


Total 


112.01 


6.11 


73.01 


32.89 


Bosque 


7.00 


.32 


4.60 


2.08 


Taos 


65.01 


3.59 


41.69 


19.73 


Mills 


40.00 


2.20 


26.72 


11.08 



- 79 - 




Figure 13.- Visiting relationships between families at Bosque Farms, January 1937. 

Each ring represents the location of adwelllng; the symbol on the ring designates the 
group towhlch the family belongs. Heavy rings Indicate families who have moved away 
since January 1 937. Solid lines indicate that relations-hips were mutual, or 2-way; 
brok.en lines, that they were single, orl-way. For example: family 12 visited family 
11, both Taos families. Family 11 also visited family 12. Tha t they were k.ln is indi- 
cated bycrosses on the solid line. Family 37 visited family 12; both were Taos fami- 
lies andhad> been acquainted before moving to the project. Family 12 did not visit 37. 



- 80 - 



In the construction of tables of frequencies which v/ould result from 
chance, the introduction of the restriction that no family in any group can 
choose itself tends to decrease the expected frequencies in the Valencia County- 
Valencia County, Taos County-Taos County, and Harding County-Harding County 
cells. This means that the frequencies in these cells, when subtracted from the 
frequencies in the same cells in Table 31, with the observed frequencies, would 
show greater differences. This could lead to indications of in-groupings which 
might otherwise not show up. Table 34 differs from Table 33 in that the re- 
striction that no family in any group can visit itself is introduced. The re- 
duction in the expected frequencies in the Valencia-Valencia, Taos-Taos, and 
Harding-Harding cells, when this restriction is applied, does not change the 
differences in observed and expected frequencies enough to alter the conclusions 
drawn from the comparison of Table 33 and Table 31. There is no proof that 
Taos County families constitute an in-group if the assumptions introduced in 
determining the expected random frequencies are correct. However, the observed 
number of visiting relationships of Harding County families with Harding County 
families is almost twice as great as the expected frequencies would be under 
such conditions of random choice as those indicated in Table 34. The Harding 
County and Valencia County groups were still in-groups. Differences in expected 
and observed frequencies are great enough to make Tables 32, 33, and 34 sig- 
nificant as indicated by the Chi Square Test. 



COMPARISON OF OBSERVED VISITING ASSOCIATIONS WITH THOSE 
EXPECTED FROM CHANCE GROUPINGS, DYESS COLONY 



Comparisons of the relationships in Figure 3 (p. 14) with a situation 
in which only chance determined the association have been made by F. F. Stephan, 
Secretary of the American Statistical Association. 55/ Combining mutual and 
single relationships, the total 885 visiting relationships were classified 
as follows: relationships between movers and movers, 190; between non-movers 
and non-movers, 449; and between movers and non-movers, 246. If there were no 
factors other than chance operating, these 885 relationships should be classi- 
fied approximately as follows: mover - mover. 111; non-mover - non-mover, 370; 
and mover - non-mover, 404. A test of significance indicates that the movers 
associated with movers and non-movers with non-movers more than would have been 
the case if only chance were determining the relationships. Mr. Stephan's 
analysis proceeds as follows: 

Assume that for each relationship involving a family the name of the 
family is written on a slip of paper. There will be in all an even number of 
slips, say N of them. Of these N slips M will represent "movers" and L "non- 
movers." Let the slips be drawn in random order and let every other slip begin- 
ning with the first be paired with the slip drawn immediately following it, the 
pair to constitute a relationship between the families whose names are on the 
slips. There will be P = N/2 pairs. 

Consider now the number of ways in which this may be done. There are 
N! = N(N-1)(N~2) ...3.2.1 permutations or orders in which slips m.ay be 
be drawn, all equally likely. Of these there are ML(N-2)1 in which a desig- 
nated pair has been formed by the drawing of a "mover" followed by the drawing 
of a "non-mover." A like number of the same type of relationships may be drawn 
in the reverse order and since there are P pairs to consider there are 2PML(N-2) ! 
such relationships in all the permutations of the slips. After a "mover" has 
been drawn for a given pair there are only M-1 "movers" which could be paired 
with it and hence there are PM(M-1 ) (N-2) ! relationships of the "mover and 
mover" type in the compl.ete set of permutations. Similarly, there are PL(L-l) 
(N-2)! relationships of the "non-mover and non-mover" type. Hence these three 
types are to be found in the proportions of 2ML : M(M-l) : L(L-l) / 

The following table shows the actual and expected proportions of relation- 
ships of each type: 



T ype of Relationship 



Expected 
Proportion 



Actual 
Proportion 



Difference 



Mover and non-mover 
Mover and mover 
Non-mover and non-mover 



.457 
.125 
.418 



.278 
.215 
.506 



-.179 
+ .090 
+ .088 



1.000 



1.000 



35 / Mr. Stephan developed this treatment for the Dyess problem previous to 
calculations made on the Bosque project, as described in the preceding section 
of the appendix. His advice was followed in both analyses. 



- 82 - 

In calculating these expected proportions no allowance has been made 
for the restriction that a family cannot enter into a relationship with itself; 
tv/o slips for the same family should not constitute a pair. The effect of this 
restriction would be to diminish the expected proportions of mover -mover and 
non-mover - non-mover relationships and to increase the expected proportions of 
mover - non-mover relationships, as a result of which the differences would be 
larger than those shown in the table. It is difficult and, in this instance, 
unnecessary to calculate the amount of the correction needed to take account of 
this restriction. It is evident that the actual proportions differ greatly 
from those that would be expected in the long run if the relationships were es- 
tablished by chance. Conceivably such differences might arise by chance, how- 
ever, in a single instance. The exact probability of differences as great as 
these or greater could be calculated but the work would be quite laborious. 
A simple calculation will provide a satisfactory substitute, 

Consider the drawing of a set of relationships pair by pair. The proba- 
bility of drawing a pair of a specified type will vary from draw to draw. Let 
2 be this variable probability. The number of pairs of a given type drawn at 
any designated draw will be either or 1 and the error variance of this number 
will be 2(1-2). The error variance of the number of pairs of this type in all 
P draws of the set is the sum of all such products for the various values taken 
by 2 from draw to draw. Now 2 {!-£)> '""^S'^^i^o't exceed 1/4 and at the last draw it 
is 0. Hence the error variance of the number of pairs of the given type is 
less than P/4. The standard error of the number of such pairs is the square 
root of the error variance and the standard error of the p roportion of such 
pairs may be secured from it by dividing by the number of pairs. Hence the 
standard error of the proportion of pairs of a given type is less than one-half 
the square root of the reciprocal of P, or, in this example, less than 0.017. 
Clearly each of the differences in the table is statistically significant by 
this test, for each exceeds five times its standard error. In other words, if 
relationships were determined by chance, they would almost never show as small 
a proportion of "mover and non-mover" relationships in this group of families 
as was actually observed. 



NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY 



1022221307 



NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY 



1022221308 



NATIONftl OCRKLILTiJIJIll |IBP«R» 




1022221309 



NATIONAL A&RiCULTURAl I IBRARY 




1022221310 



NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY 



1022221311 



NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY 



1022221312 



NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY 



1022221313 



NATIONAL AGRlCULTlJRfll IIBRARV 



1022221314 



NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY 




1022221315